Accused Teen Said to Keep Enemies List

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:aqrPa.1112$zy.60@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:8LfPa.548$zy.363@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
newsrOOa.124729$MJ5.36547@fed1read03...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"dfsdfasdf" wrote in message
...
If someone takes this angle about this they are ignorant.
Columbine
kids had both parents, what was the excuse there? I don't
believe
this
has anything to do with psychosis or even systematic
psychological
abuse by classmates, which can cause mental problems and
pent
up
anger. We just don't know what motivates certain kids to
be
pushed
over the edge from being picked on, while other kids'
internalize
it
and grow up with low self-esteem and complexes. Who knows?
But
it
has
nothing to do with single parent homes, especially single
parent
homes
where the father is the single parent.

Then perhaps we'll quit hearing so much about how single
mothers
'ruin'
children.

The statistics speak for themselves.

Those of us mothers raising good, considerate children would
probably
appreciate it.

There's a few of you.

You can bet the ranch she ain't one of them

I don't know which I find more amusing - that you would use the
posting of
a
newspaper article as yet another opportunity to flame me,
personally........ or
that you would attempt to flame me personally, and my mothering,
when
you've met
neither me, nor my children.

Have you met Bill Clinton personally?

Non sequitor

It's not a comment; it's a question.

It still has nothing to do with anything - nor does it have anything to do
with
people who would use the posting of a newspaper article (about someone
else) as
an opportunity to attack me and my mothering of my children, when they've
met
neither.

Is it a prerequisite to meet someone in person before making claims against
their character?


If they want to continue to make things up this way, they only make
themselves
look bad.














On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:54:21 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...Teen-Plot.html

The father, Ron Lovett, has raised his sons alone since
his
wife
died
nearly
10
years ago

(Mel Gamble) wrote in message ...
Columbine was an anomaly. The problem is kids who have failed to develop a
sense of worth and a sense of responsibility, kids who have failed to learn
that actions have consequences, kids that have their values all screwed up.
Columbine was ONE example of an "intact" family which failed to instill these
important lessons, possilbly in spite of all good intentions. This story is
ALSO an anomaly - it is ONE example of a single father who failed in the same
way.

But our prisons and juvenile detention centers are FULL of the status quo -
(mostly) men from single-mother-headed "families" where that same teaching
failed.

Kids from an intact family CAN "go bad". Kids from a single father home CAN
"go bad". But the statistics show that the odds of a kid going bad are MUCH
higher for kids from single mother homes.

I sometimes wonder about that, Mel. If the preponderance of
single-parent homes were single father homes, would statistics show
that children from single father homes fared more poorly than others?
Do children from single mother homes do so much more poorly
statistically because mothers are granted custody almost as a matter
of course whether they are the better parent or not, and the fathers
who fight to raise their children are the fathers who really, really
want them, so will do a good job raising them? (Of course, I am not
saying that if a father does not get custody, he doesn't really want
his kids enough) Or are the statistics saying that children really do
need both parents to have the best chance of turning out as balanced,
happy, responsible adults with both parents actively involved in their
lives. And, if both parents are not involved, then a concerned
parent, actively involved in the child's life is the next best thing.
I just don't think we can jump from "single mothers are crappy, single
fathers are better" based on the statistics until we see how the kids
turn out with 50/50 custody being the norm, and those cases that
aren't 50/50 divided evenly between mothers and fathers.

That's a good question, Teach, basically boiling down to "Is the average father
a better parent than the average mother?" Or is that really the question we're
looking at? I don't think so. When we see all the negative stats that come
out of single-parent homes, we can see at least one or two things that all
these negatives have in common - a poor sense of responsibility and an
inability to follow (society's) rules. In the "what ever happened to them"
two-parent family that we're prone to compare to, those just happened to be
aspects of maturing that were more often put under the father's guiding hand.

With the traditional set of values learned from the father on one side and the
traditional set learned from the mother on the other, it seems fairly easy to
see that a failure to gain those that are on the father's side would be more
likely to cause a child or young adult to become one of these statistics we
read about. It's not that the things on mother's side are any less important
in an overall sense, it's just that losing them is less likely to cause a child
to become one of the stats.

So, assuming that fathers and mothers were equally dedicated to doing a good
job, I would say that kids from a single-father home would tend to do better in
these particular stats because the fathers would view "doing a good job" as
concentrating on those particular things which would be more likely to help the
kids avoid becoming stats.

Now for the part that's more difficult. I wrote above "... assuming the
fathers and mothers were equally dedicated to doing a good job ..." I don't
believe that's true in our current world. We have spent too many decades
telling fathers that not only were they not necessary to raise kids....we don't
even want them trying. At the same time, we've put enormous pressure on
girls/women to be the one who will sacrifice anything and everything to keep
and raise the kids. I've written about this before. I think this has caused a
lot of mothers to feel they have NO CHOICE but to raise the kids, even when it
was the LAST thing they wanted to do. I think this has resulted in a lot of
very poor mothers insisting on raising their kids and doing a very poor job of
it. But I also think it has probably made dedicated parents out of some
mothers who would have been mediocre parents without the added pressure

Sooo....full answer - if a coin were tossed in each case and fathers got the
kids half the time and mothers the other half ... I have to say that I don't
know if the stats would be any better. I also have to say that in an overall
sense we'd probably see a (small) decline in the overall quality of parenting.
The difficulty in answering this question is that it's much easier to see the
importance of NOT robbing a liquor store or NOT becoming pregnant at 13 than it
is to see the the importance of making sure you're always dressed in clean
clothes or that you always get sufficient sleep or that you know how to fix
your own meals.

Even sticking with the narrow view of "good parenting" as defined by avoiding
becoming one of these stats, I think it should be fairly obvious that by far
the better situation is two loving parents, with single parents of either
gender following a distant second and third.

Mel Gamble

(Mel Gamble) wrote in message
...
Columbine was an anomaly. The problem is kids who have failed to develop a
sense of worth and a sense of responsibility, kids who have failed to learn
that actions have consequences, kids that have their values all screwed up.

Columbine was ONE example of an "intact" family which failed to instill
these
important lessons, possilbly in spite of all good intentions. This story
is
ALSO an anomaly - it is ONE example of a single father who failed in the
same
way.

But our prisons and juvenile detention centers are FULL of the status quo -
(mostly) men from single-mother-headed "families" where that same teaching
failed.

Kids from an intact family CAN "go bad". Kids from a single father home
CAN
"go bad". But the statistics show that the odds of a kid going bad are
MUCH
higher for kids from single mother homes.

I sometimes wonder about that, Mel. If the preponderance of
single-parent homes were single father homes, would statistics show
that children from single father homes fared more poorly than others?
Do children from single mother homes do so much more poorly
statistically because mothers are granted custody almost as a matter
of course whether they are the better parent or not, and the fathers
who fight to raise their children are the fathers who really, really
want them, so will do a good job raising them? (Of course, I am not
saying that if a father does not get custody, he doesn't really want
his kids enough) Or are the statistics saying that children really do
need both parents to have the best chance of turning out as balanced,
happy, responsible adults with both parents actively involved in their
lives. And, if both parents are not involved, then a concerned
parent, actively involved in the child's life is the next best thing.
I just don't think we can jump from "single mothers are crappy, single
fathers are better" based on the statistics until we see how the kids
turn out with 50/50 custody being the norm, and those cases that
aren't 50/50 divided evenly between mothers and fathers.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:51:16 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:
"Sunny" wrote in message
.. .

Your children, while perhaps considerate to you, are damaged by your
actions toward their father. That is a given.

Still can't control yourself - just have to keep replying to my posts.........
*that* is a given.

Why, it appears to be mutual!