A disconnect at camp

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


--

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

Banty wrote:

In article .com, Barbara
says...

greccogirl wrote:

L. wrote:

greccogirl wrote:


My god, what the children of the world do, before cell phones? I guess
they were just abused by having to go to camp without a phone! ROTFLMAO

A lot of them got in trouble and had no way to contact anyone for help.
I want my child to have the means to contact me anytime, anywhere,
regardless of anyone else's policies.

-L.


A lot of them? Doubtful! I went to camp all my life and never "got
into trouble". I didn't know anyone who did! A child doesn't need a
cell phone at camp, unless they are too immature to be there in the
first place, or possibly his parents are too immature to let their kid
out of their sight.

Well, aren't you lucky! You never met anyone who was bullied at camp.
Or who was placed with a group of kids who smoked/did drugs/were
sexually promiscuous, and really didn't know how to get out of the
situation. Had a counselor who harrassed them, or left the kids on
their own while going out to smoke/yadda yadda. Was abused or
molested. Otherwise faced a situation that s/he couldn't handle on
his/her own. Well, that doesn't mean that those things don't happen,
or that kids should be forced to face those things without parental
assistance.


So - what - the kid at camp will call Mommy or Daddy from his handy little cell
(which, of course, is left in his hands by said bullies or miscreants), and
they'll come flying like eagles to his side to Save Their Child?? (Or, maybe
teleportation has been discovered - part of the new Wireless World we're in, and
they'll just BEAM over!)

Or does it seem more reasonable that these problems be reported by the kid to
his camp counsellors and/or his parents for further action? Including pulling
them out of a bad camp environment if necessary.

Really, this is all about the Invisible Electronic Umbilical Chord, and
Momma-Bears and Papa-Bears pinning that Concerned Parent Merit Badge on their
aprons and suits.

I think it may also be that Ubiquitous Cell Phone Culture, where every "do you
want skirt steak or london broil tonight" or "well, look in your sock drawer for
them - did you ask your dad where you left them" question HAS to be asked and
answered IMMEDIATELY or Life Falls Apart.


I don't believe that cell phones are *necessary* for all kids who goes
to overnight camp. Indeed, there's probably a lot to be said for
cutting that cord. OTOH, I don't think that Lyn's position is out of
line, overprotective, or otherwise ridiculous. IIRC, her son is now
about 2 years old, so I don't think that overnight camp is imminent.
However, whomever said that when the time comes -- if it comes -- she
should seek out a camp that permits cell phones (and they do exist) is
correct; that's what I would do.



Naw, it's a silly position, no surprise from the author. Mamma Bear Supreme.


The reason why cell phones are often banned is because it impacts the camp
environment and atmosphere to have kids IMing and yammering at each other across
the camp. As well as needing to cut that invisible umbilical chord for some
little time - it's called growing up!

Exactly. If a child is special needs than they shouldn't be going to a
regular camp. What a nightmare to have every kid in camp with cell
phones - the entire point of camp is doing activities and learning.
They can im each other and talk at home. :-)

Although an *alternate* policy is "no cell phones visibie". That is, the child
can have a cell for calling home in true emergencies, or after camp, or in case
there is a need to shut down the camp early. So - they can carry the cell, but
if it's out (and there's no accepted reason for it to be out; if it's out, it's
assumed that it's out for use), it gets confiscated. No, not just for the day.
That's what my son's daycamp, and his school district, has.

So, would a policy like that make folks feel more comfortable?

Exactly. Phones if absolutely necessary can be kept with the
counselors. Although I would imagine that with some kids (especially
the smothered ones) every thing that happens is an "emergency"

Banty

IF the child feels comfortable speaking to the counselor. IF the
counselor gives a fl***g f***, as opposed to being some teenager who
really just wants to get through the summer the easiest way and collect
his tips at the end. IF its not the counselor who is the problem. IF
the situation is not one that needs immediate attention.


Barbara, I don't think your kids are good candidates for camp. You have
too many built in negatives before you even start. :-)

bizby40 wrote:

"Barbara" wrote in message
oups.com...

Its really difficult to respond when everyone here keeps changing
their
positions.


I haven't given my position yet, but I am also in the "no cell phone"
camp. If there were no downsides, then I'd say, "Sure, let 'em have
'em." But there are. There is a discipline issue of kids using them
when they're not supposed to. There is the problem of parents or
friends calling the camper. There is the possibility of losing the
thing in the woods. There is the fact that many of the cabins/tents
the kids stay in have no electricity to charge the darn things. There
is the "haves vs. have nots" dynamic set up.

Sure the camp might be able to work with or around all these things,
but I don't blame the camp if they don't want to. It wouldn't make me
suspicious that there were things going on that they didn't want
reported. Of course you and Lyn don't have to send your kid to camp
if you don't agree with their policies. I wouldn't want to send mine
to a camp where all parental contact was forbidden. But if there were
two similar camps and one allowed cell phones and the other didn't,
I'd send mine to the "no cell phones" camp.

Bizby


Exactly. I'd never be a chaperone in a camp full of kids with cell
phones. It's just not necessary. I'm sure the camp counselors have
access to phones or their phones can be held in case of an emergency.
People forget that with the liability issues that abound today it is not
likely that children are going to be thrown into situations where they
are going to get into serious trouble. Sure things happen but most of
what I'm reading here I think is way overblown.

Oh, boo-hoo. My mother was a *HORRIBLE MOTHER* because she sent me to
camp and I didn't have a cell phone. The HORROR!

Nan




ROTFLMAO - Me too, Nan! My god I don't know how I lived to be 52!!!

user wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 10:25:25 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:
.... and in the spirit of this whole thread, an interesting, albeit somewhat
watered down look at paranoid, helicopter parents, and the trend to
raise children who never experience negative consequences and situations:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...12-000010.html

Ironically enough, it was just pointed out to me by a 6th-grade teacher
friend who was complaining about certain of her students who
never have managed to grasp the concept that they are not the center
of the universe.

- Rich

So are you asserting that being ****ed up the ass is some sort of
"caharacter building" exercise?

Speaking of "reading for comprehension..."

Did you even read the articles I
posted?


Indeed I did. They were traumatic for everyone involved, I have no
doubt.

Now, have you learned to seperate possibilities from probabilities,
yet?

- Rich

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.

Barbara

Rosalie B. wrote:

"bizby40" wrote:

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
. ..

"bizby40" wrote:

I don't like the idea of overnight camp because I don't like being
away from my kids for so long. Also, I don't think either has the
right personality for it, so I don't think they'd enjoy it.

One of those is your problem, which is maybe going to be their
problem
in the future. And one of those is possibly a valid assessment.
Although it may be that your view of what they would enjoy because
of
your bias.

Well, the idea of sending them away to an overnight camp has never
even really come up. People around here just don't seem to do that.
And you know, I never did it as a kid either. So, I doubt I'll ever
really consider it until and unless one of them actually asks to go.

But my assessment of how they'd like it is based on how they deal with
the day camps they've been to.


All my kids went to overnight camp, although the two younger ones were
only at sports camps and not scout camp IIRC. The two older ones went
to GS camp in RI. First day camp and then overnight camp and then
DD#1 went to primitive horse camp. And they seemed to enjoy it. Then
we moved to southern MD, and they dropped out of scouts (there were
enough other activities to take up their time - 4H, swim team, Pony
Club etc).

DD#2 went to 4H horse camp, and so did dd#3. DD#3 went to swim camp
at UVA, and also to Pony Club Rallies, and DS went to Pony Club camp.
I can't remember whether he went to swim camp or not. It seems to me
that two of the children did, but I don't remember whether it was DD#2
and DD#3 or DD#3 and DS.

Pony Club Rallies were fairly strenuous because the parents were only
allowed to feed the kids and help run the camp, but not do any of the
stable work. When DD#2 went to the USAFA, a Pony Club friend who had
gone to USMA told her that Plebe year was just like a year of Rally.
(And BTW, DD#2 was not allowed any phone calls home for the first 6
weeks of USAFA.)

DD#3 and DS also had summer jobs away from home for the summer that
they were 16 at various stables. DD#3 at a big show jumping stable,
and DS at a dressage stable. They lived in a kind of dorm situation.


My boys went to their first overnight camp at 8 and 9 without cell
phones, LOL. I was a bit anxious but they had a BALL..... when they got
off that bus they were brown, tan, had Indian feathers stuck in their
hair, quite a few scrapes and generally had a fantastic time. That was
the first of many.

Yeah, I was an overprotective anxious mother like many on here, but I
got over it and they were fine.

L. wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote:

And they need to know some other skills for coping OT just running to
the cell phone and calling mommy.



How do you expect a child to "cope" with situations like these?

http://www.campsafetyproject.org/id14.html

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.

-L.

Incrediblyl naive? Do you REALLY believe this kind of garbage?

3 1/2-year old boy forced to have oral sex with his 11 year old
counselor-in-training. Camp denies possibility. 11 year-old confesses
his crime to local police department and receives psychiatric treatment.
Western Massachusetts Summer Day Camp, 1990.


Oh YEAH A 3 1/2 year old kid SENT TO CAMP. Overnight. Right.

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


Rosalie B. wrote:

And they need to know some other skills for coping OT just running to
the cell phone and calling mommy.


How do you expect a child to "cope" with situations like these?

http://www.campsafetyproject.org/id14.html

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.


So, have you perfected your teletransporter yet?

Did these kids have cells? Do you think that would have made the difference?
If so, explain. Were they prevented from calling home on a camp phone?

IOW what's the rest of the story, and how do these relate to this discussion?

Really, digging up these rare instances and pointing to them they way you do
belies a distortion of reality. A former highly respected regular here, Chris
Biow, had a signoff that is very good to keep in mind. It's the few stories
like this that stick in some folks' minds, not the millions of successful camp
experiences. It's like folks who are afraid to fly, because they focus on the
few crashes that hit the news, not the thousands of daily successful flights.

"Beware the vividness of transient events."
Karl von Clausewitz


Banty

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.

On 11 Aug 2006 11:29:30 -0700, "Barbara"
wrote:


user wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 10:25:25 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:
.... and in the spirit of this whole thread, an interesting, albeit somewhat
watered down look at paranoid, helicopter parents, and the trend to
raise children who never experience negative consequences and situations:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...12-000010.html

Ironically enough, it was just pointed out to me by a 6th-grade teacher
friend who was complaining about certain of her students who
never have managed to grasp the concept that they are not the center
of the universe.

- Rich

So are you asserting that being ****ed up the ass is some sort of
"caharacter building" exercise?

Speaking of "reading for comprehension..."

Did you even read the articles I
posted?


Indeed I did. They were traumatic for everyone involved, I have no
doubt.

Now, have you learned to seperate possibilities from probabilities,
yet?

- Rich

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.

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.

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?

Nan