Prime example of why I hate other parents...

On 10 Aug 2006 13:56:20 -0700, "L." wrote:


Tori M wrote:
Lyn is a Childfree Wannabe. She calls the rest of us Breeder Cows.
She's Perfect because she adopted a child and doesn't let him eat in
public because she thinks children in restaurants are the nth level of
Hell.

LOL And sometimes it can be. What most people do not understand is the
parent with the screaming kid is praying that the wait staff will bring the
check RIGHT NOW. We get out of the habit of all eating at the table from
time to time, and when we do the kids do awful eating out. The more we eat
at the table the better they do eating out.

Tori

Nan is talking out her ass. We do eat out as a family but only on
Family Night at a certain restaurant. And we would leave if DS became
disruptive. I have seen parents not care of their kids disrupt
others. To me, that's the epitome of restaurant rudeness.

-L.

Hey, you go to a Family restaurant, you get what you get.

Deal with it.

Nan

On 10 Aug 2006 14:24:38 -0700, "L." wrote:


Knit Chic wrote:
There are all kinds of disruptions in the world ... a lot of people need to
get over themselves.
My daughter has a disability and not a disability that everyone can see. If
she has issues in a public area, I will remove her from that public area if
it benefits her. I'm not going to remove her from an area that she is
legally permitted to be in for any other reason, even if that means she is
"disrupting" someone else.

Well, then you're a selfish bitch. And if your kid continued to
disrupt my intimate dinner, you'd be removed from the restaurant.

-L.

You have intimate dinners at a Friendly's type restaurant? That's
pitiful.

Nan

"L." wrote in message
ups.com...

0tterbot wrote:
i'm curious as to why you "hate" other parents (what, all of them?
including
me? ;-) because the zoo's policy is moronic & the child is at fault?

The parents are at fault. The zoo is merely following state health
regs, most likely.

the zoo owns the meerkats, the zoo allows admission.

the zoo is at fault here as well, (twice). i don't like zoos.

I don't either. But in this instance, the parents are at fault.

no, the zoo owns the meerkats, the zoo allows admission. the child poked the
meerkats. the meerkat bit the child. NONE of this has to do with the
parents. you just want to make up a reason it's their fault because you
"hate parents"? no zoo = no incident, OR, no kid = no incident. buggered if
i can work out how it's the parents' fault.


i don't mind
most parents, though. it's not clear to me how this incident would lead
to
parent-hating, unless it's just something you like to do, in which case
finding more "reasons" is probably a bit redundant.
?

Parents fail to supervise their children ad nauseum.

but you said 9 is old enough to know better, so which is it?? if 9's enough
to know better, it's the child's fault. if it's not old enough to know
better, it must be the zoo's fault if she could reach them unpermitted & get
herself bitten. if there is no acceptable option to anyone afterwards but to
kill all the meerkats (which i certainly would not expect if it were me) the
incident is STILL not their fault!

you might be fond of judgement, but you're really grasping with this one.
kylie

Knit Chic wrote:

-L.


wow ... look at you with all that power. I have to say ... I'm soooo very
impressed. not.
How are you going to do this?

The manager would do it. If you are disruptive enough, you'd get
kicked out. It happens.

As I said (and you seem to have snipped)
Some adults need to learn tolerance just as much as some children need to
learn what is tolerable.

You're the epitome of Entitlemoo. Inconvenience the entire universe
because you have an uncontrollable brat. Nice.

-L.

0tterbot wrote:
no, the zoo owns the meerkats, the zoo allows admission. the child poked the
meerkats. the meerkat bit the child. NONE of this has to do with the
parents. you just want to make up a reason it's their fault because you
"hate parents"? no zoo = no incident, OR, no kid = no incident. buggered if
i can work out how it's the parents' fault.

Did you even read the article? The kid climbed on a display that was
clearly marked DO NOT CLIMB ON ROCKS, stuck her hand through a small
hole in the barrier and tried to pet the animals. THAT is how she got
bitten. Pure negligence by whomever was supervising the child.


but you said 9 is old enough to know better, so which is it?? if 9's enough
to know better, it's the child's fault.

It's the child's fault as well, but ultimately parents are responsible
for the actions of their children so the responsibility for the
incident is on the parents.

-L.

toypup wrote:
I think most of them tend to seat families with small children near each
other when possible. That has been our experience.

Yes - and I don't mind it when they do as it seems to entertain DS a
bit while he eats.
-L.
(posting from my other account )

On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:13 -0700, wrote:


Knit Chic wrote:

-L.


wow ... look at you with all that power. I have to say ... I'm soooo very
impressed. not.
How are you going to do this?

The manager would do it. If you are disruptive enough, you'd get
kicked out. It happens.

Who said anything about "disruptive enough"??? You obviously have a
low tolerance for noise in a Family restaurant.

As I said (and you seem to have snipped)
Some adults need to learn tolerance just as much as some children need to
learn what is tolerable.

You're the epitome of Entitlemoo. Inconvenience the entire universe
because you have an uncontrollable brat. Nice.

Uhm no. Her child has a disability. That you judge her as an
uncontrollable brat speaks volumes about you.

Nan

Really, more restaurants should do this - have a family section.

-L.

I actualy wouldnt mind this if it had toys and such and was made nice for
those that are put in it.

Tori

Mine get bad just before the check is due. They have signs that they will
be shortly but it seems like the waitstaff hides when you need them

Tori
Nan is talking out her ass. We do eat out as a family but only on
Family Night at a certain restaurant. And we would leave if DS became
disruptive. I have seen parents not care of their kids disrupt
others. To me, that's the epitome of restaurant rudeness.

-L.

wrote in message
ups.com...

0tterbot wrote:
no, the zoo owns the meerkats, the zoo allows admission. the child poked
the
meerkats. the meerkat bit the child. NONE of this has to do with the
parents. you just want to make up a reason it's their fault because you
"hate parents"? no zoo = no incident, OR, no kid = no incident. buggered
if
i can work out how it's the parents' fault.

Did you even read the article? The kid climbed on a display that was
clearly marked DO NOT CLIMB ON ROCKS, stuck her hand through a small
hole in the barrier and tried to pet the animals. THAT is how she got
bitten. Pure negligence by whomever was supervising the child.

ACTUALY on the news that I have watched for days (we get twin cities news)at
the begining the rocks where ment to be climbed on. the do not climb on
rocks sign was added later.

Tori