no toys please

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:28:59 GMT, Stephanie wrote:

Well I have a *personal* problem with re-gifting is that I personally worry
that I might accidentally re-gift somethng back to the person who gave it to
me. Rather than take that chance, being a flake and all, I don't do it.
Otherwise I think it is neat.

Tape a Post-it on it with the name of the giver so you don't forget.

toypup wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:48:25 -0500, Tori M wrote:


Say I got a 4 year old a set of Dragon Tales toys, I don't know if they
have them but lets say I did. Then I was talking with a mutual friend
that may have known a family longer and we are talking about TV rules
and I find out that the family does not allow Dragon Tales in the home I
would feel very bad. If I had known that I could have offered to
return it for something more acceptable.

If you are willing to have it returned, give a gift receipt with it or let
the recipient know it can be returned.
Yes, I should say I am not totally heartless. I just give gifts because
i want THAT person to have something. Having a new toy land in the
trash or the re gift pile feels wrong to me. I never think of those
gift tags.

Tori

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:04 GMT, Stephanie wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message

It's not rude because it's outside the norm. It's rude
because it takes something that *should* be the giver's choice
(both whether to give and what to give) and limits it. No matter
how you pretty it up, it's a prospective recipient issuing demands
about what is or isn't acceptable in their eyes. That's just rude
on the face of it. A gift is the choice of the giver. Recipients
accept it graciously, in the spirit in which it was given, and
then do with it as they please (which could well be getting rid
of it). They don't presuppose some right to receive only that
which they desire and approve.

Best wishes,
Ericka

I like the way you say things. Even in cases when I disagree with you, and
this is not one of them, I like the way you say things.

Agreed. I have Ericka especially marked, because I like to read whet she
says. Very eloquent and knowledgeable. Ericka, you ought to write a
column.

On 27 Jun 2007 13:35:38 -0700, Banty wrote:


Me too! And usually late to boot! Heck, one July, I got a box from my brother.
I was sitting on the front stoop with a friend. I said "betcha this is my
Christmas present", the friend said "pshaww.". So I opened the outer wrapper,
and there the box was in all its red-and-green reindeer Xmas wrapping glory.
Hee.


Amazingly enough, my dad has been getting better at gift-giving with age.
He used to be just awful, but now he hits the mark every year. I don't
know what happened.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Clisby wrote:


Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Banty wrote:

On the other hand,
learning that re-gifting is just fine allowed me to feel that much
better about
a (actually very useful!) wallet a friend gave me, unbeknownst to
her there was
still something in a corner of the wallet which revealed it was
briefly used. She wasn't breaking a rule or 'cheating' me - it was a
wonderful and useful
gift, good quality; right color; my favorite wallet style. Before,
I would have
felt all cheated about it, due to my upbringing.


I'm curious about this - never heard the term 'regifting'. From what
you say, it sounds as though it means passing a gift on to someone
else under the pretence that it's new?

It's giving someone else an item you received as a gift. There's not
necessarily any pretence that it's new - it might be new. Or it might
be something that obviously isn't new. I've gotten plenty of gifts
like that, and unless the giver told me, I wouldn't have any way of
knowing whether it was regifted.

Right. And at some level, we all know regifting as
an acceptable thing. After all, how many of us would have
refused, say, the gift of a family heirloom piece of jewelry
just because it wasn't brand new and chosen specifically for
us? ;-) Regifting is fine as long as it's not made obvious
to the recipient and as long as the giver genuinely believes
that the recipient will enjoy the gift.

Hmmm... I have to say that I find this whole idea that someone *might*
be pretending the gift was new and that they should avoid making it
obvious that it's not pretty bizarre. I'm fine if someone has something
that they can't use and think they might want, but not fine with the
idea that someone might deliberately leave me thinking they've been out
and bought me something if they hadn't. I'd much rather they just said
something like "Hey, I've got this wallet that I've no use for myself
but that struck me as something you might like. Want to check it out
and see whether it's something you can use?"


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

"enigma" wrote in message

I like independent toy stores too, but their stocks
compared to Toys R Us are not mutually exclusive.

maybe you have a better TRU. both the local ones are mostly
cheap plastic Disney or cartoon related toys. the Lego they
carry is all designed sets. if they carry Playmobil it's
very recent.

It's a redesigned "Geoffery's" Toys R Us, with plenty
of clothes and baby essentials, along with the usual
Target-like toys. It's easy to find something there if
needed, though it still isn't my first choice.

P. Tierney

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Clisby wrote:


Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Banty wrote:

On the other hand,
learning that re-gifting is just fine allowed me to feel that much
better about
a (actually very useful!) wallet a friend gave me, unbeknownst to
her there was
still something in a corner of the wallet which revealed it was
briefly used. She wasn't breaking a rule or 'cheating' me - it was
a wonderful and useful
gift, good quality; right color; my favorite wallet style. Before,
I would have
felt all cheated about it, due to my upbringing.


I'm curious about this - never heard the term 'regifting'. From
what you say, it sounds as though it means passing a gift on to
someone else under the pretence that it's new?

It's giving someone else an item you received as a gift. There's not
necessarily any pretence that it's new - it might be new. Or it
might be something that obviously isn't new. I've gotten plenty of
gifts like that, and unless the giver told me, I wouldn't have any
way of knowing whether it was regifted.

Right. And at some level, we all know regifting as
an acceptable thing. After all, how many of us would have
refused, say, the gift of a family heirloom piece of jewelry
just because it wasn't brand new and chosen specifically for
us? ;-) Regifting is fine as long as it's not made obvious
to the recipient and as long as the giver genuinely believes
that the recipient will enjoy the gift.

Hmmm... I have to say that I find this whole idea that someone *might*
be pretending the gift was new and that they should avoid making it
obvious that it's not pretty bizarre. I'm fine if someone has something
that they can't use and think they might want, but not fine with the
idea that someone might deliberately leave me thinking they've been out
and bought me something if they hadn't. I'd much rather they just said
something like "Hey, I've got this wallet that I've no use for myself
but that struck me as something you might like. Want to check it out
and see whether it's something you can use?"


All the best,

Sarah
That was my thought as well. I didn't know if it was unreasonable. The
other part is that a Heirloom is usually something that is cherished.
It isn't being given because it is clutter, it is being given usually
out of tradition or love. In my mind that is a bit different then
taking the toys you don't want your kids to have and giving them out at
the next birthday party that rolls up.

Like I said in another post I have never seen re gifting in a truly good
light. The only people that I know that do it, do it to get rid of the
stuff they didn't like to begin with, and usually I agree with them.

Tori

Tori M wrote in
et:

Most re-gifting I have experienced has been the unloading
crap off on someone else... Hence my bread maker... I have
relatives that would go to one Christmas at one house then
take the gifts they didn't want and give them away at the
next Christmas party a week later. If they didn't get
anything they would supplement with dollar store items.
Not that that is horrible but the year I lived in a place
without a kitchen I got lots of baking supplies.

what kind of breadmaker is it? i have a Zojirushi & Boo loves
that thing. i got it when he was 2 & he's been the breadmaker
ever since. i'm not too happy with how it bakes, but it's easy
enough to just set it to mix & do a first rise, then bake in
the oven (unless it's like yesterday, 98 & humid, in which
case it can bake in the machine without getting the kitchen
hot). you can use it to make hamburg & hot dog buns too if you
bake in the oven.
i enjoy making bread though & the bread machine is safer for
a little kid than using the big mixer & lots easier than
mixing dough by hand.

Tom's family specificly does a Dollar Store Christmas for all
the adults. he's youngest of 7 kids, plus spouses, plus adult
nieces & nephews. it's actually kind of fun trying to find the
"perfect gift" for each one at a dollar store (or yard sale,
if we cheat a bitg)
however, if one is gifting with no particular thought of the
recipient, it really doesn't matter where the gift was bought.
if there's no thought behind it other than "well, we had to
buy *something*", then don't bother getting anything.
my ex-MIL was a passive-aggressive gift giver. shudder
lee

toypup wrote in
:

On the contrary, I think seafood is perfectly fine meat.
If your sister doesn't want to eat it, she can eat later.
She should not be upset with the host for not having
certain foods available.

yes & it's also known to be a likely allergen.
i do not dispute the bride's choice to serve whatever she
likes at the reception, but having something available (bread,
fruit, veggies, anything) for those guests who might be
allergic wouldn't have taken much thought or expense. however,
in my experience, those who enjoy seafood don't even consider
that it can be potentially fatal to many people, something
highly unlikely with other meats.
i *always* eat first before attending events like weddings.
it's safer that way.
lee

In article , toypup says...

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:04 GMT, Stephanie wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message

It's not rude because it's outside the norm. It's rude
because it takes something that *should* be the giver's choice
(both whether to give and what to give) and limits it. No matter
how you pretty it up, it's a prospective recipient issuing demands
about what is or isn't acceptable in their eyes. That's just rude
on the face of it. A gift is the choice of the giver. Recipients
accept it graciously, in the spirit in which it was given, and
then do with it as they please (which could well be getting rid
of it). They don't presuppose some right to receive only that
which they desire and approve.

Best wishes,
Ericka

I like the way you say things. Even in cases when I disagree with you, and
this is not one of them, I like the way you say things.

Agreed. I have Ericka especially marked, because I like to read whet she
says. Very eloquent and knowledgeable. Ericka, you ought to write a
column.

And one not in a question-answer format (hee hee..)

Zed