Prime example of why I hate other parents...

Nan has her intimate dinners at the KFC buffet.

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.

Caledonia

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

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.

Caledonia

No, you're misunderstanding me. My position is that if you go to a
family style restaurant, you have to expect that there will be more
noise than a fine-dining establishment. If someone's child speaking
(even more loudly than you want to hear) at the next table is going to
bother you, then my suggestion is that you not patronize a place that
also caters to children.

If, as one poster stated, her daughter *may* be a bit disruptive, and
she handles it when it benefits her child. Lyn decided to go on the
attack and demand that she be kicked out if she disrupts *her*
intimate meal. That's entitlement minded thinking on Lyn's part.

In no way am I saying that people don't deserve to have a nice dinner.
What I am saying is that they should be prepared for some noise.
I don't allow my children to run around any store, from Walmart to
Carson Pirie Scott. It annoys me when I see it in either place.

Nan

StephanieTheGoofy wrote:
"L." wrote in message

Killing animals so she does not have to have some shots does not make sense
to me.

Regardless of how it was portrayed in the media, it was probably NOT a
cause and effect situation - ie she refuses the shots, so they kill the
animals for testing.

It is VERY, VERY likely that even if she had taken the shots
prophylactically, that they would STILL have euthanized the animals and
tested - for the safety of the other kids, and the zoo workers.

Do they KNOW how rabies acts in meerkats? Can it lay dormant? So she
gets her shots, doesn't develop the disease, they keep watch on the
animals, they appear fine, then wham they bite someone else.

Cathy W

wrote:
Knit Chic wrote:

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.

And you are an entitlepoo. You seem to think YOU are entitled to a
perfectly quiet atmosphere. You aren't.

I agree with Knit... both children AND adults need to learn what is
tolerable. I've removed my daughter when she couldn't control herself,
and there have also been adults who should have been removed due to
their obnoxious sense of entitlement.

Cathy Weeks

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?

no, i decided not to. rolls eyes

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.

you know, we're not big on killing zoo animals who attack silly humans
here - i couldn't tell you the last time that happened, because the general
idea is that wild animals might do that if people are witless enough to get
into such a situation. what i can tell you though is that the last person in
my city snipped by a lion for putting their hands where hands don't belong
was AN ADULT.

so was that adult's _parents_ at fault too? :-) they could only be 90 or
so - that's enough to make them wear the blame for all their transgressions
in having the gall, the absolute front, to be a pair of shudder PARENTS
(_and_ for having got away with it for so long....!!).

ultimately - a nine y.o. would, at least in theory, know better than to poke
zoo animals, climb on rocks marked otherwise, and so forth. so would, at
least in theory, an adult know better. but people lose their heads (not
usually literally g) and do silly things on the spur of the moment - and
experience tells me that adults are the prime ones for this. generally kids
are being looked after by a sensible adult, but that doesn't preclude
non-sensible adults from being daft or doing harmful things. consider the
world around you for a moment.

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.

ho hum. it's a zoo issue. this type of thing goes hand in hand with ZOOS,
not with "parents". when you've actually been a parent for more than three
seconds yourself, you might eventually develop an idea of that for which you
are ultimately responsible and can control, and that which you can only do
your best.

trying to use an incident like this to make your case for your chronic
parent-hating makes you look like an idiot. (as well as exposing the most
obvious logical lapse - you ARE one! are we going to see YOU on the news in
a few year's time after junior causes the deaths of 5 meerkats by being
temporarily unable to think straight during the 10 seconds you were looking
elsewhere?) pffft.
kylie

0tterbot wrote:

ho hum. it's a zoo issue. this type of thing goes hand in hand with ZOOS,
not with "parents". when you've actually been a parent for more than three
seconds yourself,

**** you. Too bad you don't know thew truth, because it makes you look
like an ass.


you might eventually develop an idea of that for which you
are ultimately responsible and can control, and that which you can only do
your best.

If any animal bites any child, it's *always* the parents' fault. No
ifs, ands, or buts.

-L.

Cathy Weeks wrote:

I've been to that zoo many times (I have a membership, and live 30
minutes away) and I've seen the exhibit. And in fact, my husband and
stepson have both commented about *wanting* to climb in (they
restrained themselves ;-)

A) It's trivially easy to climb into the exhibit. My 4-year-old could
probably do it.
B) It is indeed clearly marked as you described.

In this case, I'd say that the parents WERE being negligent. And the
Zoo could easily and SHOULD make it safer. Even the most diligent
parents sometimes turn their back for a second, and the toddler takes
off before the parents realize it.

This wasn't a toddler. If it was a toddler I could *almost*
understand. But even with a toddler, you have to be smart about how
you let them interact, when around animals.



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.

I agree with this. However, I don't know many parents who *would* allow
it, so I wonder what was going on. Either way, I suspect some seriously
disfunctional family life is at work.

Cathy Weeks

Thanks for your input. I suspect the parents stood by and watched, as
they do in similar situations all over the US. I once stopped a kid
from poking a kitten with a stick at our humane society after listening
to the Mom say "Nathan, don't poke that kitten" 15 times. I walked
over, removed the stick from his hand and told him "Stop poking the
kitten!". It's not neuroscience, but so many parents either A.) Don't
want ot parent their children or B.) Don't care, when it comes to
these sorts of situations. It's a shame that places like zoos have to
become idiot-proof.

-L.

-L. wrote:
Cathy Weeks wrote:

I've been to that zoo many times (I have a membership, and live 30
minutes away) and I've seen the exhibit. And in fact, my husband and
stepson have both commented about *wanting* to climb in (they
restrained themselves ;-)

A) It's trivially easy to climb into the exhibit. My 4-year-old could
probably do it.
B) It is indeed clearly marked as you described.

In this case, I'd say that the parents WERE being negligent. And the
Zoo could easily and SHOULD make it safer. Even the most diligent
parents sometimes turn their back for a second, and the toddler takes
off before the parents realize it.

This wasn't a toddler. If it was a toddler I could *almost*
understand. But even with a toddler, you have to be smart about how
you let them interact, when around animals.

I know it wasn't a toddler - it was a 9-year-old. I brought up toddlers
because they are sort of my benchmark - is the zoo a safe place for
when even a diligent parent lets down their guard for a second.

I meantioned the dysfunction - because my 12-year-old stepson might
have climbed up on an exhibit like that despite our telling him not to
when he was 4 or 5 - necessitating my husband bodily removing him. Not
at 9, and certainly not at 12. Though who knows... he might be back to
that when he turns 15! Sigh...

these sorts of situations. It's a shame that places like zoos have to
become idiot-proof.

Yes, in theory, I agree with you. However, I also kind of think that
since these are wild animals, and we cannot monitor every single
interaction between human and interaction, we need to guard against the
idiots, so the animals don't ever need to pay the price.

It's also the case that *I* would feel terrible if a kid were killed by
an animal in my zoo, despite it being their or their parent's own
stupidity at fault. Rarely do I think death is the deserved punishment
for a moment (or even two) of stupidity.

If you ever want to read about stupid people's interactions with
animals - check out "Death in Yellowstone: Tales of Death and Stupidity
in our Nation's first National Park" (or something like that). Grim
reading, but also interesting, and sometimes amusing.

Cathy Weeks

Cathy Weeks wrote:

If you ever want to read about stupid people's interactions with
animals - check out "Death in Yellowstone: Tales of Death and Stupidity
in our Nation's first National Park" (or something like that). Grim
reading, but also interesting, and sometimes amusing.

Thanks for the book rec. I read nonfiction almost exclusively but I
hadn't heard of that one.
-L.

-L. wrote:
0tterbot wrote:

ho hum. it's a zoo issue. this type of thing goes hand in hand with ZOOS,
not with "parents". when you've actually been a parent for more than three
seconds yourself,

**** you. Too bad you don't know thew truth, because it makes you look
like an ass.


you might eventually develop an idea of that for which you
are ultimately responsible and can control, and that which you can only do
your best.

If any animal bites any child, it's *always* the parents' fault. No
ifs, ands, or buts.

How absurd.

From just a 2 minute web search:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4466937/det...%3Cbr%2 0/%3E

Three year-old girl was on steps outside a home that housed a candy
store when a dog pushed its way out the door and attacked her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/stor...p-349719c.html

Boy riding tricycle on sidewalk when dog escapes from pen and attacks
him,

What did these parents do wrong? Are you blaming them for allowing
their children to be outside?

Barbara