Prime example of why I hate other parents...

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"StephanieTheGoofy" wrote in message
news:7b%Cg.2808$QK.1241@trndny06...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
So, when you call a restaurant and sorta ask them to certifiy that
no-one
would
mind if your child is disruptive enough to effect diners wanting
quiet,
what do
you think they thought! What kind of behavior were they wondering
you
were
asking for their implicit tolerance for?


No actually, we did not go to the restaurant. I called so if it was
not
appopriate, we could find somewhere else. And we did. Why do you
assume the
worst?

I think you completely misunderstood Banty! She wasn't making any
assumptions about how disruptive your child might be, or whether or
not you went to the restaurant.

What she was trying to say (if I understand correctly) is that
restaurants aren't used to people calling and asking whether the other
diners would mind a potentially disruptive child.


I asked if children went there frequently.

Therefore they (the
restaurant) might have assumed that your child is way worse than
average, which is why you felt the need to call in the first place.

So she wasn't suggesting that you not go to the restaurant. She was
suggesting that you just take the child, and deal with any disruptive
behavior if it happens. Of that if you ask them if they are a "family
restaurant" they're more likely to understand what you want and be
able to answer you.


Hu. I can easily admit to using unclear language.

Bizby

On 11 Aug 2006 06:43:45 -0700, Caledonia wrote:

Nan wrote:
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.

Er -- I think for some folks, Denny's is a Big Deal -- I realize I'm
wading into deep water here, but truly, I feel that a public space is a
public space. (Okay, I'm thinking of my parents, who could only afford,
post-retirement, a dinner out at Denny's once in a blue moon. For them,
it was an intimate dinner -- which says something about wages in the US
that's pitiful, but hey, such is life) Sure, whenever you sit in the
playplace part of McD's there's an expectation of what you'll get (then
again, fast food is typically pretty expensive, on the whole), but at a
sit-down restaurant, it's a public space and for me, the unspoken rules
(aka, 'think of it from the other guy's perspective') apply. It's the
same thing as not letting kids run around WalMart, nor letting them run
around Bloomingdales, or Saks. It's all the same, really. Or expecting
reasonable behavior, whether seated in the first class or coach
sections. Whether it's an inexpensive venue for you isn't comparable to
whether it's a casual/inexpensive venue for the other customers.


Oh, yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! :-)

Coming from the same family situation - I have retired parents, as
well, for whom a dinner at Roy Rogers, for example, is a rare event
that they look forward to - the expectation that dining rules are
different based on whether the restaurant has a colorful mascot or not,
baffles me. Yes, I expect that if I go to McDonalds, there will be
small children burping, fidgeting, bickering, and whining. I also
expect that those children will be corrected, shushed and/or removed
by their parents, if necessary, in a prompt fashion, and without any
dramatics.

One of my biggest peeves is a local nature center run by our
favorite museum. It has miles of hiking trails, an educational
center, etc. When I take my kids there, I expect them to behave
appropriately - quiet speech, no chasing the wildlife, etc. After
all, the primary purpose of the center is quiet contemplation, study,
and to give people some time away from the hustle and bustle of life.
These are, in fact, some of their explicitly defined and stated goals.
Many, MANY parents, on the other hand, operate on the "Hey! Look!
Woods! Now the children can scream at the top of their lungs! They
can run around, ripping up saplings! Fun for all!" The concept
that quiet contemplation and screaming children are not compatible
doesn't seem to enter into their worldview at all.

- Rich

--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 7b%Cg.2808$QK.1241@trndny06, StephanieTheGoofy says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article U2ZCg.7634$z12.4360@trndny02, StephanieTheGoofy says...



I phoned a restaurant recently that we had never been to before to ask
of
children were welcome. The host or whatever did not really know what I
meant. He said we have things on the menu that children might find
appealing
yadda yadda. I said no that's not what I mean. Do children and
families
frequent the restaurant enough that this is the kind of place where
other
patrons expect it? Or are the patrons looking for their relaxed,
quiet,
romantic dinner? He paused for a minute and said "No one has ever
asked
me
that before." He then tried to very graciously tell me it was really
the
latter without telling me we were unwelcome. And thanked me profusely
for
my
concern....

I think that some people assume that everywhere is appropriate for
their
children if *they* want to go.



Hmmm, this kinda reminds me of a new college roomate who asked me "are
you
one
of those people who get uptight if anything happens if people use your
stereo
equipment?" I was puzzled, too, thought she must have had some
incident
in the
past, blamed the *owner* for something breaking and that person being
upset
about it, and she's sorta asking me to certify in advance that she can
use
the
equipment roughly without my objection. What could I say? "Sure, have
at
it."??
So I said "um, yes, I don't care for my stuff getting broken". She
said
"hummph" and didn't use it for the rest of the year..

So, when you call a restaurant and sorta ask them to certifiy that
no-one
would
mind if your child is disruptive enough to effect diners wanting quiet,
what do
you think they thought! What kind of behavior were they wondering you
were
asking for their implicit tolerance for?


No actually, we did not go to the restaurant.

I know that, I read that.

I called so if it was not
appopriate, we could find somewhere else. And we did. Why do you assume
the
worst?

*I'm* not assuming the worst. You miss my point. You might have the most
well-behaved kids in the world. It's just that, when you call and ask
that sort
of question, of course the restaurant wonders what they're in for. You're
sorta
asking them ahead of time to implictly OK some kind of disruption to quiet
diners, and they don't know to what extent that is. Some folks think kids
talking too loud sometimes is a huge disruption; other think kids running
around
the table squealing, sometimes taking a parcel from someone's plate, is
normal
(I've seen that!). So, on the other end of the phone, I can see the
person
working in the restaurant wondering if you've had a lot of problems from
restaurant owners due to the latter kind of behavior, and are going to
discourage you. *They*, to be safe, would assume the worst, getting an
open-ended question like that. That's my point.

Banty


Yeah. I get that now. Next time I will ask if they are a family restaurant
and be done with it. I wonder what that guy thought.

--

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

LOL. I kind of wish I had taken the kids to that zoo before now. Bonnie
LOVES Meerkats! We have watched that discovery channel show about them a
few times. The display was neat and set up to be climbed on so that
children could get a closer look. I am sure once it is reopened it will
have a taller glass wall and the rocks once again will be climbable.

Tori
Okay, here's a response Lyn will love: "But it's CLEAR the zoo HAD to
add the sign because the Entiltmoo Breeders were too STUPID to teach
BRATLEIGH that she shouldn't climb on the rocks!!!!!"

Nan

In article , user says...

On 11 Aug 2006 06:43:45 -0700, Caledonia wrote:

Nan wrote:
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.

Er -- I think for some folks, Denny's is a Big Deal -- I realize I'm
wading into deep water here, but truly, I feel that a public space is a
public space. (Okay, I'm thinking of my parents, who could only afford,
post-retirement, a dinner out at Denny's once in a blue moon. For them,
it was an intimate dinner -- which says something about wages in the US
that's pitiful, but hey, such is life) Sure, whenever you sit in the
playplace part of McD's there's an expectation of what you'll get (then
again, fast food is typically pretty expensive, on the whole), but at a
sit-down restaurant, it's a public space and for me, the unspoken rules
(aka, 'think of it from the other guy's perspective') apply. It's the
same thing as not letting kids run around WalMart, nor letting them run
around Bloomingdales, or Saks. It's all the same, really. Or expecting
reasonable behavior, whether seated in the first class or coach
sections. Whether it's an inexpensive venue for you isn't comparable to
whether it's a casual/inexpensive venue for the other customers.


Oh, yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! :-)

Coming from the same family situation - I have retired parents, as
well, for whom a dinner at Roy Rogers, for example, is a rare event
that they look forward to - the expectation that dining rules are
different based on whether the restaurant has a colorful mascot or not,
baffles me. Yes, I expect that if I go to McDonalds, there will be
small children burping, fidgeting, bickering, and whining. I also
expect that those children will be corrected, shushed and/or removed
by their parents, if necessary, in a prompt fashion, and without any
dramatics.

Ditto here.

Although I think there's some natural "cover" in a noisier place, to think that
anyone in a "family restaurant" has signed on to any kind of disruption is just
unreasonable.

People in the trades in a fast food place for lunch; a retired couple on the
road stopping for dinner at a Denny's or a Friendly's, absolutely do deserve to
be able to relax and enjoy their meal.

It isn't all or nothing Chuckie-cheese's of Chez Fancie.


One of my biggest peeves is a local nature center run by our
favorite museum. It has miles of hiking trails, an educational
center, etc. When I take my kids there, I expect them to behave
appropriately - quiet speech, no chasing the wildlife, etc. After
all, the primary purpose of the center is quiet contemplation, study,
and to give people some time away from the hustle and bustle of life.
These are, in fact, some of their explicitly defined and stated goals.
Many, MANY parents, on the other hand, operate on the "Hey! Look!
Woods! Now the children can scream at the top of their lungs! They
can run around, ripping up saplings! Fun for all!" The concept
that quiet contemplation and screaming children are not compatible
doesn't seem to enter into their worldview at all.

Yep. And the increasing incidence of people on cellphones talking to whomever
about whatever on the trails! I mean, I think my mindspace is going to occupy a
little of "Walden Pond", and I get "Kateleigh's Saturday Party 'Till Her Parents
Got Home" instead.

Banty


--

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

In article , Tori M says...

LOL. I kind of wish I had taken the kids to that zoo before now. Bonnie
LOVES Meerkats! We have watched that discovery channel show about them a
few times. The display was neat and set up to be climbed on so that
children could get a closer look. I am sure once it is reopened it will
have a taller glass wall and the rocks once again will be climbable.


Cute. I've been watching that sometimes. But their social life seems to be
Junior High But With The Seriousness of Life and Death. Yeeesh.

Banty


--

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

Knit Chic wrote:
"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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. Some adults need to learn tolerance just as much
as some children need to learn what is tolerable.

May I ask what sorts of disruptions you're talking about, and in what
environments you believe these disruptions should be tolerated?

There are, for example, people who take the position *Babies cry, and
people need to understand that. So if my baby starts screaming at the
top of her lungs during the speech you're trying to listen to, well, I
want to hear it too, so you can live with it*

Other people take the position *your child needs to be whisked away
from the public -- including hiking trails, apparently -- before the
first unmodulated syllable escapes; if there is any risk of
misbehavior, your kid shouldn't be in public*

I don't agree with either of these extremes. So I was curious about
what behaviors of circumstances you are discussing.

Barbara

On 11 Aug 2006 08:36:29 -0700, Barbara wrote:

Knit Chic wrote:
"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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. Some adults need to learn tolerance just as much
as some children need to learn what is tolerable.

May I ask what sorts of disruptions you're talking about, and in what
environments you believe these disruptions should be tolerated?

There are, for example, people who take the position *Babies cry, and
people need to understand that. So if my baby starts screaming at the
top of her lungs during the speech you're trying to listen to, well, I
want to hear it too, so you can live with it*

Other people take the position *your child needs to be whisked away
from the public -- including hiking trails, apparently -- before the
first unmodulated syllable escapes; if there is any risk of
misbehavior, your kid shouldn't be in public*

I presume that one is directed at me. ;-)

Please note that you're greatly exaggerating my statement. I was
commenting about children running around in a nature preserve,
screaming, damaging the local flora and abusing the fauna. And having
the full approval of their parents, while doing so. This is a bit
beyond "whisking the child away before the first unmodulated syllable
escapes."



I don't agree with either of these extremes. So I was curious about
what behaviors of circumstances you are discussing.

As far as I can tell, there's only one notable poster who subscribes
to the "No disturbances at all, ever, and if there is even the
slightest chance of noise, the child should not be in public." There
are two of the "Kids will be kids, deal with it, you're the one with
the hang-up" attitude. The rest seem rather middle-of-the-road, unless
my newsserver has been dropping a lot of posts, again.

Honestly, I think most people do take the middle-of-the-road
approach. At least in theory, if not always in practice. ;-) For example,
a couple a months ago at the aforementioned nature center, a
group home ( I presume ) was having a field trip with a half
dozen or so developmentally disabled adults. They were loud. REALLY
loud. Loud beyond all belief. My 5 yr old DS turned to me
and said, "Daddy, they're scaring all the animals away, and
I don't like that. But I think they don't usually get to walk
around in the woods, and they're really happy, so it doesn't
bother me much." And *THAT* is what I think we should all
be trying to do. Just strive to do the best we can, and make
allowances for others when appropriate, even when it annoys us.

- Rich

--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

user wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 08:36:29 -0700, Barbara wrote:

Knit Chic wrote:
"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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. Some adults need to learn tolerance just as much
as some children need to learn what is tolerable.

May I ask what sorts of disruptions you're talking about, and in what
environments you believe these disruptions should be tolerated?

There are, for example, people who take the position *Babies cry, and
people need to understand that. So if my baby starts screaming at the
top of her lungs during the speech you're trying to listen to, well, I
want to hear it too, so you can live with it*

Other people take the position *your child needs to be whisked away
from the public -- including hiking trails, apparently -- before the
first unmodulated syllable escapes; if there is any risk of
misbehavior, your kid shouldn't be in public*

I presume that one is directed at me. ;-)

Well, the hiking trails part, anyway. The other parts don't even
consciously refer to anyone here. The *screaming in a speech baby*
refers to people who kept their screaming babies in a room when I was
trying to listen to a speech. I'll add that this was at a synagogue on
Shabbat, so there was no microphone.

Please note that you're greatly exaggerating my statement.

Admittedly a bit.

I was
commenting about children running around in a nature preserve,
screaming, damaging the local flora and abusing the fauna. And having
the full approval of their parents, while doing so. This is a bit
beyond "whisking the child away before the first unmodulated syllable
escapes."

But my recollection is that you went beyond that. You suggested that
the nature preserve was a place for quiet contemplation. I'm sure its
a wonderful place for that. But I also see it as a wonderful place for
kids to explore nature. I wouldn't think twice about kids running
ahead on trails, shreiking *look at that* or any number of things that
might disturb *quiet contemplation* (Although I also wouldn't linger
near anyone who appeared to be seeking more quiet.)


I don't agree with either of these extremes. So I was curious about
what behaviors of circumstances you are discussing.

As far as I can tell, there's only one notable poster who subscribes
to the "No disturbances at all, ever, and if there is even the
slightest chance of noise, the child should not be in public." There
are two of the "Kids will be kids, deal with it, you're the one with
the hang-up" attitude. The rest seem rather middle-of-the-road, unless
my newsserver has been dropping a lot of posts, again.

As noted, I'm commenting on real-life occurrences.

Honestly, I think most people do take the middle-of-the-road
approach. At least in theory, if not always in practice. ;-) For example,
a couple a months ago at the aforementioned nature center, a
group home ( I presume ) was having a field trip with a half
dozen or so developmentally disabled adults. They were loud. REALLY
loud. Loud beyond all belief. My 5 yr old DS turned to me
and said, "Daddy, they're scaring all the animals away, and
I don't like that. But I think they don't usually get to walk
around in the woods, and they're really happy, so it doesn't
bother me much." And *THAT* is what I think we should all
be trying to do. Just strive to do the best we can, and make
allowances for others when appropriate, even when it annoys us.

And how wonderful that your son recognized that as well. Must be good
parenting.

Barbara

Ha ha! What udder bull**** you stupid cow!

I have yet to find one of you tard-moos telling the truth.

Uh-huh, your little mongoloid maiden is some kind of savant. Keep
telling the lie long enough and even you might believe it.

If your retarded brat had a 138 IQ you wouldn't be playing the
disability card.

"One of the top people in the country" oh, ha ha ha ha haaa... I better
put my shorts on because the bull**** is getting higher. It's always
going to be the short bus for your little tard.

Knut Chic wrote:

"LaTreen Washington" wrote in
message ...

I can see your brat’s retardation is hereditary.



Actually, my child has an IQ of 138. She has been tested by one of the top
people in the country.