A disconnect at camp

In article , Nan says...

On 11 Aug 2006 11:17:18 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , LaTreen Washington says...

Is that what happened to you Lyn?

That would explain your brain damage.

L. wrote:



So are you asserting that being ****ed up the ass is some sort of
"caharacter building" exercise? Did you even read the articles I
posted?

-L.


Oh, they got out!!

Back into your cell, Treenie and Lyn!

(Now, how'd they get out...? Nan - did you let 'em out??)

Banty

Nooooo, not me :-)
Hey, just recently Lyn was all aglow that Treenie said she acted like
a PNB. What a kick it must be for her to receive validation from a
Childfree. Wonder what changed his mind?


I think he just has a short memory..

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Nan wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 11:29:30 -0700, "Barbara"
wrote:
SNIP
Sure. But do YOU understand that different parents will *legitimately*
weigh the risks that they are willing to take in different ways? Why
do you consider it inherently UNREASONABLE for a parent to evaluate the
risks of a traumatic event occurring while a child is at overnight camp
(where the child may be at an age as young as 7 for as long as 8
weeks), and to conclude that it would be best to provide a means of
communication in case of such emergency? Originally, some people
suggested that its *unreasonable* because those things just never
happen (with one poster challenging Lyn to provide instances), but I
think we now all pretty much agree that they do, albeit not with
tremendous frequency.

Actually, that poster disputed her assertion that "A lot" of children
got into trouble without the protection of a cell phone.

IIRC, that poster (who has now resurfaced) indicated that she didn't
know of anyone who got into trouble, and challenged us to prove her
wrong.

One poster suggested that if parents simply did
their jobs in screening camps, bad things (including bullying, IIRC)
wouldn't occur, but we all know that bad things can happen even in the
best-screened circumstances.

No, *I* said parents can put in effort of screen camps. I did not
assert nothing bad would ever happen.

I apologize if I misread your comments, but that's not how I took them.
I provided a list of things that can and do occur at camp. Someone
responded that she would never want to send her child to a camp where
such things occur. You then said that to avoid it, parents should put
efforts into screening. You most assuredly didn't add that even the
best screening is not 100% effective, and that things can and do
happen.


Does it all boil down to a contention
that it is UNREASONABLE for a child to have a cell phone simply because
another phone is likely to be available at the camp? If so, why,
'cause I just plain don't get it; I just plain don't get why its
UNREASONABLE, BAD, OVERPROTECTIVE, DOING AWFUL THINGS TO YOUR KIDS,
yadda yadda yadda to weigh the risks of an emergency against the cost
of a cheap cell phone (the kind they sell in drug stores, with limited
minutes and no texting capability) -- or even an expensive one if they
can afford it -- and to conclude its a good idea.

It's Lyn's posting history, most likely. We're all TERRIBLE PARENTS
because we let our children ride school busses with other adults. I'm
sure that thread can be googled.
That we'd send our children to a camp with strangers, in her opinion,
makes us bad parents. Do you understand THAT thinking?

But you're not talking to Lyn; you're talking to me. And you're
telling ME that I'M a lousy mother because I may wind up weighing the
circumstances and giving my kid a cell phone. (More honestly, I've
weighed them and decided he WILL have one when he starts 7th grade
unless something changes that makes me think he needs one sooner.)

I actually understand the fear of putting your kid on a school bus,
BTW. When One was in nursery school, I saw him to the classroom. I
said hi to his teachers regularly. I knew that I could briefly mention
something to them, or that they could grab me and say *by the way ...*
That all changed with the school bus. I no longer knew all the kids in
the class, or their parents. Any meeting with teachers was likely to
be planned. It was different for One, and different for me.

So let's leave Lyn out of it. Sure, its reasonable to conclude your
child does NOT need a phone at camp. Why is it UNREASONABLE to
conclude that its a good idea for a child to have one for emergency
use? Why am I such a lousy mother, in your opinion?

Barbara

user wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 11:29:30 -0700, Barbara wrote:
Sure. But do YOU understand that different parents will *legitimately*
weigh the risks that they are willing to take in different ways? Why
do you consider it inherently UNREASONABLE for a parent to evaluate the
risks of a traumatic event occurring while a child is at overnight camp
(where the child may be at an age as young as 7 for as long as 8
weeks), and to conclude that it would be best to provide a means of
communication in case of such emergency? Originally, some people
suggested that its *unreasonable* because those things just never
happen (with one poster challenging Lyn to provide instances), but I
think we now all pretty much agree that they do, albeit not with
tremendous frequency. One poster suggested that if parents simply did
their jobs in screening camps, bad things (including bullying, IIRC)
wouldn't occur, but we all know that bad things can happen even in the
best-screened circumstances. Does it all boil down to a contention
that it is UNREASONABLE for a child to have a cell phone simply because
another phone is likely to be available at the camp? If so, why,
'cause I just plain don't get it; I just plain don't get why its
UNREASONABLE, BAD, OVERPROTECTIVE, DOING AWFUL THINGS TO YOUR KIDS,
yadda yadda yadda to weigh the risks of an emergency against the cost
of a cheap cell phone (the kind they sell in drug stores, with limited
minutes and no texting capability) -- or even an expensive one if they
can afford it -- and to conclude its a good idea.

Now, let's talk about *possibilities* vs. *probabilities* A friend of
mine is taking her kids for haircuts this afternoon. It is highly
UNlikely that she'll be in a car accident, yet she'll weigh the risk of
an accident against the discomfort, and conclude her kids should wear
seatbelts. Indeed, think of all of the things that aren't *probable*
If you don't lock your doors at night, or when you go away for vacation
for a week, chances are no one will notice, and you won't be robbed.
Chances are if you leave your 4 year-old home alone for 8 hours, she'll
be fine when you come home. Most people who use illegal drugs in their
teens are just fine. Most people who have unprotected sex -- even with
strangers -- don't get AIDS. But none of these are risks I'm willing
to take, or risks that I would want my son to take. Just because its
not *probable* doesn't mean its not something we should try to guard
against.


I agree with most of your points, although probably not for the reasons
you expect. ;-) The examples you cite are legitimate cases where
people are going to have differing opinions about what is safe,
reasonable, and probable.

Thanks. I try to be reasonable at least once a day. ;- But I'm not
sure I get your first point. I figured you'd agree with me because I
was being reasonable.

I think the point of contention, at least in the context of this
thread, centers around the parents using a particular tool - a
mobile phone - as an electronic tether for their children. It
goes beyond the "convenience" factor, and becomes yet another way
for many parents to continue to assert their control in situations
in which there is no reasonable prospect of harm.

There is most assuredly a point where a cell phone becomes an
electronic tether. I'm not prepared to argue when that is. I think it
differs depending upon the age and personality of the child and of the
parent. But that's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about an
*emergency* phone.

Back to your examples - they're cases where, indeed, something
"bad" might happen to your possessions if you leave your door
unlocked for a week - but probably won't. On the other hand,
I think most people would be hard pressed to think of someone
who is so absolutely obsessive about keeping track of their "stuff"
that they build figurative bomb shelters over their house.
On the other hand, we have posters here who assert that they
can't bear to be away from their school age children even
overnight. Or to leave them with a teenage babysitter. Or to
let a fifth grader to play out of sight of adults for a few
hours. Because "something might happen." Can that be good
for a child? I don't think so, at all.

But that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about whether
a parent who permits his/her child to go away to overnight camp is
tranformed into a bad, overprotective, evil parent who ruins his/her
kids' lives because they provide an emergency cell phone even though
its *un*likely that it will be required.

Barbara

In article .com, Barbara
says...



But that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about whether
a parent who permits his/her child to go away to overnight camp is
tranformed into a bad, overprotective, evil parent who ruins his/her
kids' lives because they provide an emergency cell phone even though
its *un*likely that it will be required.

Barbara


I think you're cherry-picking one of the more emotional statements here.

I think it's really about if a camp policy not to allow campers to have
cellphones is a reasonable policy. The argument against that is that cellphones
are so necessary in case of some awful thing happening to hte child, that they
have to be allowed to have them.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Banty wrote:
In article .com, Barbara
says...



But that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about whether
a parent who permits his/her child to go away to overnight camp is
tranformed into a bad, overprotective, evil parent who ruins his/her
kids' lives because they provide an emergency cell phone even though
its *un*likely that it will be required.

Barbara


I think you're cherry-picking one of the more emotional statements here.

Which one? The one where you said that my defense of cellphone use
demonstrated my person investment in *the Invisible Electronic
Umbilical Chord, and
Momma-Bears and Papa-Bears pinning that Concerned Parent Merit Badge on
their
aprons and suits* or when you stated that *There really is an
undercurrent of parental possessiveness expressed here that can deprive
a child of some really great childhood experiences.* I'm sure there's
more, I just don't have time to find them all.

I think it's really about if a camp policy not to allow campers to have
cellphones is a reasonable policy. The argument against that is that cellphones
are so necessary in case of some awful thing happening to hte child, that they
have to be allowed to have them.

No, that's NOT what the argument is about. I've repeatedly stated that
banning cell phones is a reasonable policy, but its not the ONLY
reasonable policy. But when I've pointed out why other policies --
permitting cell phones at camp -- are equally valid, I've been
attacked. That's what the argument is about. Its about whether if a
camp permits cell phones, and a parent determines that its in his/her
child's best interests to provide one, that parent is (to paraphrase
you) demonstrating overly possessive and unreasonable behavior. I've
repeatedly asked you to support that position instead of calling me
names. I'm asking you again. Why does it make a parent a bad parent
to weigh certain risks in favor of a cell phone?

Barbara

On 11 Aug 2006 12:08:02 -0700, "Barbara"
wrote:


Nan wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 11:29:30 -0700, "Barbara"
wrote:
SNIP
Sure. But do YOU understand that different parents will *legitimately*
weigh the risks that they are willing to take in different ways? Why
do you consider it inherently UNREASONABLE for a parent to evaluate the
risks of a traumatic event occurring while a child is at overnight camp
(where the child may be at an age as young as 7 for as long as 8
weeks), and to conclude that it would be best to provide a means of
communication in case of such emergency? Originally, some people
suggested that its *unreasonable* because those things just never
happen (with one poster challenging Lyn to provide instances), but I
think we now all pretty much agree that they do, albeit not with
tremendous frequency.

Actually, that poster disputed her assertion that "A lot" of children
got into trouble without the protection of a cell phone.

IIRC, that poster (who has now resurfaced) indicated that she didn't
know of anyone who got into trouble, and challenged us to prove her
wrong.



One poster suggested that if parents simply did
their jobs in screening camps, bad things (including bullying, IIRC)
wouldn't occur, but we all know that bad things can happen even in the
best-screened circumstances.

No, *I* said parents can put in effort of screen camps. I did not
assert nothing bad would ever happen.

I apologize if I misread your comments, but that's not how I took them.
I provided a list of things that can and do occur at camp. Someone
responded that she would never want to send her child to a camp where
such things occur. You then said that to avoid it, parents should put
efforts into screening. You most assuredly didn't add that even the
best screening is not 100% effective, and that things can and do
happen.

It's that "Duh" factor. I don't bother mentioning every single little
detail of something that I consider to be obvious. I like to think
the people I'm conversing with are intelligent enough not to need
that.

Does it all boil down to a contention
that it is UNREASONABLE for a child to have a cell phone simply because
another phone is likely to be available at the camp? If so, why,
'cause I just plain don't get it; I just plain don't get why its
UNREASONABLE, BAD, OVERPROTECTIVE, DOING AWFUL THINGS TO YOUR KIDS,
yadda yadda yadda to weigh the risks of an emergency against the cost
of a cheap cell phone (the kind they sell in drug stores, with limited
minutes and no texting capability) -- or even an expensive one if they
can afford it -- and to conclude its a good idea.

It's Lyn's posting history, most likely. We're all TERRIBLE PARENTS
because we let our children ride school busses with other adults. I'm
sure that thread can be googled.
That we'd send our children to a camp with strangers, in her opinion,
makes us bad parents. Do you understand THAT thinking?

But you're not talking to Lyn; you're talking to me. And you're
telling ME that I'M a lousy mother because I may wind up weighing the
circumstances and giving my kid a cell phone. (More honestly, I've
weighed them and decided he WILL have one when he starts 7th grade
unless something changes that makes me think he needs one sooner.)

But nobody is telling you any such thing. I know I haven't, and I
think you're extrapolating things from other posts. That I think it's
silly to think cell phones a necessity is NOT calling you a bad
parent. If you choose to think so, I cannot help that.

I actually understand the fear of putting your kid on a school bus,
BTW. When One was in nursery school, I saw him to the classroom. I
said hi to his teachers regularly. I knew that I could briefly mention
something to them, or that they could grab me and say *by the way ...*
That all changed with the school bus. I no longer knew all the kids in
the class, or their parents. Any meeting with teachers was likely to
be planned. It was different for One, and different for me.

But do you think parents who put their child on a school bus are
terrible parents? I understand the fear, also. But I got over it in
about 10 minutes. I made sure I met the bus driver, and I stand at
the bus stop with my daughter every morning. I meet her bus after
school. The alternative is to drive her to school myself, but I don't
want to.

So let's leave Lyn out of it. Sure, its reasonable to conclude your
child does NOT need a phone at camp. Why is it UNREASONABLE to
conclude that its a good idea for a child to have one for emergency
use? Why am I such a lousy mother, in your opinion?

I haven't said you are a lousy mother. You're reading into it.

Nan

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup
Well, it's both, of course, but that you yourself describe that you were
the
only kid who couldn't attend a um-um class ;-) says, that in your day,
almost
every kid could.

My comment stems from Bizby's example of what today's parents are like. I'm
sure most every kid in 3rd grade can attend without a parent, most every 3rd
grader can go on field trip. I'm not sure if every kid does go to camp,
because I didn't know any kid who went to camp growing up, but parents must
still be doing it, because they aren't out of business, yet. Anyway, the
point is that Bizby knows a parent like that. Doesn't mean it's the times,
it's just the parent.

Also, we tend to look upon our childhood through rose colored glasses.
Mostly, I think it's because we were protected from the horror stories by
our parents. I'm sure they had the same concerns you see parents today
having. They just didn't tell their kids, just like most of us don't go
around sharing our paranoia with our kids, to protect their innocent views
of the world. So, when our kids grow up, they will remember the innocence,
and with their newfound wisdom, wonder why people are so paranoid compared
to when they were young.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:46:35 GMT, user wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:47:11 -0500, Cyli wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 14:22:25 -0700, "L." wrote:


Banty wrote:
Exactly. The only advantage to a cell phone is immediacy. And it's the
perceived need for immediacy that I question.

Banty

Well if your kid was getting ****ed up the ass then maybe you might get
a clue as to why "immediacy" is necessary.

-L.

Then get the kid an emergency response beacon. Tell the kid what
it'll cost (lots, as in many thousands of dollars) for a non-emergency
response. Then be prepared to pay the bill if the emergency
responders judge it an unnecessary call.


You know, I presume that you're speaking half in jest, but that's a
fascinating approach. A PLB that will work anywhere in the world,
barring the poles, costs about $600 or so - cheaper than a year's
worth of cell phone bills, in many cases. It lasts for a dozen
years. It is absolutely, positively guaranteed to get a response,
even in the most remote area. You can get them pocket-sized, and
not much bigger than a last-generation cell phone.

I wonder how many helicopter parents are now rushing online
to get their own PLB? ;-)


Not really a jest. It's for the paranoid or very concerned parent
(one who's had a problem like L.'s). Given L.'s scenario, it's what
he'd want for his kid.

Only problem is getting a chance to use it during the act. After, if
you're still alive, using a conventional call to the cops is the right
thing to do.

And it ignores that there are gazillions of opportunities for such
things to happen to the kids within a block of their own homes back in
town, where, if they were given a chance to scream, mom or dad could
hear their voice without amplification.

One does have to keep in mind that if the emergency button is pressed
and it's not an emergency or could have been handled by getting a
nearby person to dial 911, it's going to cost big money.

I think that L. simply should avoid sending his kid to camp, since
that's where his main worries are.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Tori M" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, that 3 1/2 year old should have never been sent to camp without a
cell phone. Give me a break. Some people see sexual abuse around every
corner. That is really what this is all about. A lot of parents like
this who have older kids are scared to death they might have sex at camp,
and that is truth of the matter.

My DH lost his virginity at a camp, but it isnt like he was going to call
his mom with a cell phone to tell her.

You're giving the parents more ammo to keep their kids at home.

"greccogirl" wrote in message
ink.net...
KIDS ARE AT RISK WHEREVER THEY ARE. Period. You cannot guard them 24
hours a day! Maybe if these kids had a little more independence and
learning of the ways of the world they wouldn't allow this kind of thing
to happen to them, they would know better to yell for help.

It's not the children's fault when they are molested. Yes, it would be good
to arm them with defense strategies, but to say they should have done this
or that, I think you underestimate the child molesters and are placing the
blame on parents and the children themselves. Child molesters have been
around honing their skills for sometimes decades before the child was born
and know the art of manipulation and the psychology of a potential victim.


Your first article states the man gave the boy candy for performing sex on
him.

I didn't read the article, but I have heard of that happening with very
young children, who wouldn't know what s*x is to resist.