Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:21:28 -0500, Nan wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:03:18 -0600, toto
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:01:27 GMT, (Brent P)
wrote:

Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
thrown a punch.

Both will get suspended. And no it's not fair.

Is it really that way now? When my ds was in elementary school, the
ZT policy was for those getting *into* a fight, even in self-defense.
However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

That's how it was at the high school that I taught at. I doubt
there are any written policies at schools where it says that a
person being assaulted deserves suspension.


P. Tierney

I agree with most of your sentiments here but want to point out that
this sort of thing is natural and from a naturalists point of
view(which I am not)is desirable. I think that this is merely a
thinning of the herd type event, but the particular kid was merely the
gizelle that made it out of the grip of the lioness. My intent with
such a comment is not to make reference to any dark historical events,
but that it is natural for the slower, weaker, less suited to not have
such an easy go of it. I am glad that no innocent people were hurt in
this case. On an even lighter note, this may just be another "Rio
Linda". For those of you that missed the humor in that... never mind
you may never get it.

toto wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:34:22 GMT, DTJ wrote:

Kid came to his door, bothered him, trying to extort money. Wanted to
charge $80 bucks an hour to shovel ****ing snow.

How do you know that this job would only have taken 1/2 hour.

How deep was the snow? Was it wet or dry? How long was the
area of the walkway to be cleared?

Where did he say the kid knocked on his door and wanted to
shovel?

How does this relate to overindulgent parents? We don't
know anything about his parents from this anecdote.
How does this show anything about the kid not *doing any
wrong* in the eyes of his parents?

We know only that the boy said his price was $40 for the
job at hand and the man didn't like the price. How does that
say anything about the kid being spoiled when we don't
know the parameters of the job.

Note: Jon was trolling - misc.kids was included because he
wanted to start an argument. Most of the mk posters simply
don't see the connection he made and I don't see how you
can if you look at this rationally.

(begin OP include)

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

(end OP include)

--
Dorothy

I am the original poster. I was responding to this post:

Paul wrote:


http://archive.thebrunswicknews.com/...ws%0A%09%09%09

Hopefully the link above works, I found this while cruising the web. Not
two
weeks after christmas and two children in this sleepy little town have
already been hit by cars while riding scooters that their best friends
(parents) indulged them with this holiday season.

IMO, these parents should be held civilly and criminally liable for the
damage to the vehicles that these children of theirs caused.

I have witnessed these children on numerous occasions lately breaking
nearly
every traffic law imaginable except for speeding on these things - which I
assume these scooters are not capable of. Among the violations and/or
dangerous acts I have seen my self include disregard for traffic signals,
disregard for stop signs, riding on sidewalks, riding on the wrong side of
the road and darting in and out of traffic and otherwise acting in an
unpredictable manner. Also, (atleast in GA), these kids are violating the
law simply by taking these scooters on public rights of way since they must
be at least 15 years of age to operate one off private property and they
must also have a DL or Learner's Permit.

It would be nice if the police would start to crack down on these idiot
kids - hitting their parents in the pocketbook would be a good start.

rant off

--
Paul


Here is what I wrote:


First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
and don't even use helmets! The law here requires helmets
for bicycles so you'd think the parents would demand they
wear them .... but they (kids) always get "their way" but
this will change when one of them is seriously hurt! They even
ride through this neighborhood at night with no lights attached
to their motor cycles. Where are the parents?

Jon

I had responded that 7-8 young children were given small
motorcycles for Christmas, too, and they ride and speed,
while ignoring traffic laws that we (licensed drivers)
must obey - or PAY! And you either pay with your wallet
or your life, depending on your luck.

I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
is very spoiled. To further demonstrate my thoughts, I told
about the boy who refused to help me for $10. I have had
a heart attack and cannot shovel. I cannot afford to pay
$40 because I'm on a fixed income.

I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
to take my $40. And then you have the nerve to ask me about
"how many feet?" the walkway is .... who are you a sidewalk
superidendent?

This was cross posted to rec.mototcycles hoping that some
experienced riders would tell about how important helmets
are, and the dangers of speeding - when you are not experienced.

I won't be responding anymore to this thread. I just knew
the same parents who spoil kids and justify their "every
actions" might jump on me .... and you did.

Jon

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
...

I don't know about rec.motorcycles, but misc.kids sprung fully formed
from the loins of net.kids, back in thre great re-naming of 1987 (or was
it 1986). Before my time, anyway.

The point - directed more at whomever X-posted this to the other groups - of
my question was I was wondering how this got to misc.kids and
rec.motorcycles as I did not X-post the original article there. See
(http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...-8&threadm=Xns
946B8D2976D9smvsmv%4066.75.162.201&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drec.autos.driving%26ie
%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch) for my original
post which was only to rec.autos.driving.

--
Paul
==HOMICIDE!! SLOWER TRAFFIC THIS SIDE==

"Scott in Aztlán" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:05:25 GMT, "P. Tierney"
wrote:

I agree. But the poster seemed to think that the kid
should've accepted his price without question, and that's
what I disagree with.

I don't understand how you and toto got that impression. To refresh our
memories, here's the quote again:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:05:03 -0500, Jon Walters
wrote:

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

To my mind, Jon is saying he felt the kid's asking price was too high, he
made
a counteroffer, and they could not come to terms so the kid left. Where's
the
"bitching?" Where's the "demand" that the kid shovel his walk, or that the
kid
accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

If he didn't expect the kid to adhere to his price, then why is
he complaining about it? I wondered that from the beginning.
If the poster didn't expect to go along with his price, then he
didn't (unless I missed some posts) state what he did expect.
Thus leaving it up to the imagination.



P. Tierney


P. Tierney

"Jon Walters" wrote:

I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
to take my $40.

Tried to take? How ridiculous.

I won't be responding anymore to this thread. I just knew
the same parents who spoil kids and justify their "every
actions" might jump on me .... and you did.

No, that's simply to insulate yourself from any
criticism. If anything, it provides a justification for
those who thought that your original post was
shallow and baseless insofar as it related to your premise.


P. Tierney

In article , toto wrote:

That's crap. I know from experience. The teachers know who the victim
and the perps are. But to make things easier they write up a 'zero
tolerance policy' or some other BS so they can just point to the policy
and not think.

Administrators make ZT policy not teachers.

Nit picking. Administrators are generally promoted teachers.

Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
thrown a punch.

Both will get suspended. And no it's not fair.

And that was like 18 years ago, I shudder to think
what it is like now.

Punishing both is unfair, but if the rule is *no fighting,* what
would you have the school do?

Well let's see, stop asking for infinite tolerance. And actually
come down hard on the harrassers in the first place. Schools are
asking for children to just sit there and take the abuse. The staff
doesn't do anything to stop it. When a kid stands up for himself,
he often gets punished too or alone. This puts a kid that is trying
to play by the rules in a really bad spot. All he can do is just
sit there and take it. And even then he isn't safe from punishment.

I think the inability of kids to fight back on a low level is a
contributor to this eventual explosion where frustration manifests
itself in a lethal event. I can only go by my personal experience,
and what I've seen/read.

Interestingly, when I went to school, girls didn't get into physical
fights much, but they do now.

They did when I was in school. But that's not a topic I was bringing
up or is it some sort of personal insult?

I think there are several things schools need to do.
First they must identify what is happening and not make it ok (it
tended to be ok if the jocks did it when I was in school and I think
that is still fairly true).

There is always the group that it is ok for.

Second, they must make the school atmosphere such that
everyone - school secretaries, janitors, teachers, etc. are all
on the same page and intervene *before* the fight gets to the
level of physical violence.

Not all fights have a pre-physical violence level. sometimes
kids are just jumped or attacked because the attackers feel they
can get away with it or get their jollies from it.

There are several peer-intervention programs that work in
middle school and high school.

Oh jeese. I pitty the unpopular kid.

Third, they should intervene with the bullies and their parents
well before middle school. Teachers in elementary school
can certainly see some of this coming.

Might work, if their parents give a flying...

Fourth, they must actively teach tolerance and acceptance
of differences. In elementary school, every conflict is a
teachable moment. If we want violence free schools and
classrooms, we have to teach this and we have to allow the
children to have some control as well.

Tolerance and acceptance *bleech* How about just leave other
people alone?

But, remember that the school budget doesn't allow for this
and it *will* take away from academic teaching. The politicians
already say that schools are not supposed to teach ethical
and moral behavior. Yet, kids are endangered if they are
*different* in any way.

It could take away from teaching the political and social agenda.
Which from what I read now takes up more time than ever before.
But it was fair portion when I was in school. (single digit %)

In article , Nan wrote:

Both will get suspended. And no it's not fair.

Is it really that way now? When my ds was in elementary school, the
ZT policy was for those getting *into* a fight, even in self-defense.
However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

That's how it was when I was in junior high, and that was back in the
80s. I had a kid punch me and would have been suspended if my mother
hadn't gotten involved. What did I do? I stood there and looked at
him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.

BTW what's a ds?

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:%tNLb.12027$8H.32376@attbi_s03...
In article , Nan wrote:

Both will get suspended. And no it's not fair.

Is it really that way now? When my ds was in elementary school, the
ZT policy was for those getting *into* a fight, even in self-defense.
However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

That's how it was when I was in junior high, and that was back in the
80s. I had a kid punch me and would have been suspended if my mother
hadn't gotten involved. What did I do? I stood there and looked at
him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.

Then times have changed. In some places, anyway.


P.
Tierney

(Brent P) wrote in news:YqNLb.12616$I06.90034
@attbi_s01:


Nit picking. Administrators are generally promoted teachers.


What do you call a burned out school teacher with an IQ of 75?

Principal...

--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com