Discussion:
OT: High School Kids No Longer Shower after Playing Sports or Gym Class?
(too old to reply)
fmomoon
2009-08-23 21:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Okay, but no one here is getting after those of us who have spanked. I
tend not to say anything because, as I said, I know I will no doubt take
a lot of heat.
But your repeated mention of it not being popular is almost apologetic, as
if you KNOW you have to placate the non-spankers before you mention it.
--S.
I apologize to no one about my choices. No, I'm just sensitive that others
don't agree with me. Not everyone enjoys being argumentative. The last
thing I want to do is open yet another unsolvable issue to a never ending
debate. Don't we have enough of that around here? I never have said I am
the be all that ends all when it comes to raising children. I did what
worked for me and, although I'm sure I made some mistakes, that's all I can
do. My assumption is that most parents do the same thing.
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
fmomoon
2009-08-23 21:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, Susan, I have spanked my children. My husband believes in it
more than I do, but there have been very rare occasions when they got a
quick swat on the behind. I mean, come on, we're not talking a with a
stick or anything, just a quick, light swat on the rear. I know this
isn't a popular statement to make, and you have been able to raise
wonderful children without doing that, more power to you.
I think people tend to equate spanking with abuse, and this puts it in a
bad light. Spanking is one method of discipline out of many. I
wouldn't choose it as a first option, and I wouldn't do it in anger, but
there have definitely been times when I have laid out the situation and
told a child that if he continued a certain undesirable behavior, he
would be spanked. Sometimes the kids choose to not be spanked; other
times they choose the punishment that was set out. When you make it
their choice then they have the opportunity to NOT get spanked. And no,
a swat on the behind is not going to injure someone.
--S.
I realize that my choice isn't popular, Suzanne, and I agree with your
assessment. It is a very hot topic and a very dividing one. Respect to
both sides is important. I don't claim to be the world's foremost expert
on raising children. I only know what worked for me.
Just to inject a little humor into this contentious discussion, when I was
a little girl, my two big brothers went around the NBH cutting our
neighbor's clotheslines (this was way before the invention of clothes
dryers). Now, my dad didn't spank us very often, but when he found out
about it, he very quietly went outside and cut a long switch from a peach
tree, came back inside and, one by one, smacked them both sharply on the
behind several times and sent them out immediately to apologize to each
neighbor they had vandalized. He made them pay for all the cut
clotheslines with their allowances. They were adolescents at the time and
knew better than to vandalize the NBH. They accepted their punishment
without question and never did anything like it again. Ah, those were the
days when parents were parents and kids learned to behave the hard way!
Xan
I remember a similar situation with my brother. He decided to swing on my
mom's clothesline and broke it. He spent the next couple of weekends and
his own money replacing it. I don't remember a spanking, but I'm sure there
was one. Fast forward about twenty years and my nephew did the same thing.
My brother, remembering, decided what worked for him, would work for his
son. The only problem was, no one made clotheslines anymore (this was the
kind on a tree like thing). Ah "progress."
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-24 22:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by fmomoon
I remember a similar situation with my brother. He decided to swing on
my mom's clothesline and broke it. He spent the next couple of weekends
and his own money replacing it. I don't remember a spanking, but I'm
sure there was one. Fast forward about twenty years and my nephew did
the same thing. My brother, remembering, decided what worked for him,
would work for his son. The only problem was, no one made clotheslines
anymore (this was the kind on a tree like thing). Ah "progress."
Actually, they still make clotheslines (all types). I actually bought a
brand new one about two years ago, when my dryer went on the fritz and the
earliest the repairman could come by was about a week later. I bought it at
Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH).

:)

- Peter
fmomoon
2009-08-25 01:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by fmomoon
I remember a similar situation with my brother. He decided to swing on
my mom's clothesline and broke it. He spent the next couple of weekends
and his own money replacing it. I don't remember a spanking, but I'm
sure there was one. Fast forward about twenty years and my nephew did
the same thing. My brother, remembering, decided what worked for him,
would work for his son. The only problem was, no one made clotheslines
anymore (this was the kind on a tree like thing). Ah "progress."
Actually, they still make clotheslines (all types). I actually bought a
brand new one about two years ago, when my dryer went on the fritz and the
earliest the repairman could come by was about a week later. I bought it
at Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH).
:)
- Peter
Hmm...usually my brother is pretty good figuring out stuff like that. I
don't know. I'm just going by what he told me.
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
fmomoon
2009-08-23 21:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Yup. Tired, hungry, ill or just mad at the world children actually exist
even when parenting is stellar.
Also, tantrums caused by the absolutely horrible feeling that comes with
taking Prednisone. Those who say kids having public tantrums have bad
parents haven't taken into consideration any of the causes that are
completely beyond the parents' control.
Since the main topic seemed to be about the courtesy of removing a
tantrumy child from a store, perhaps it shouldn't be about who makes a bad
parent; but about who makes a bad shopper.
--S.
Yes. I'm sure that since a child who is taking Prednisone doesn't exactly
wear a sign that explains the tantrum to the casual observer, it is wise not
to judge. You bring up a good point.
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
Tin@
2009-08-23 23:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Yup.  Tired, hungry, ill or just mad at the world children actually exist
even when parenting is stellar.
Also, tantrums caused by the absolutely horrible feeling that comes with
taking Prednisone.  Those who say kids having public tantrums have bad
parents haven't taken into consideration any of the causes that are
completely beyond the parents' control.
Since the main topic seemed to be about the courtesy of removing a
tantrumy child from a store, perhaps it shouldn't be about who makes a bad
parent; but about who makes a bad shopper.
--S.
Yes.  I'm sure that since a child who is taking Prednisone doesn't exactly
wear a sign that explains the tantrum to the casual observer, it is wise not
to judge.  You bring up a good point.
--
Moni
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
You're telling Miss Judge Everyone not to judge?
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 17:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Yes. I'm sure that since a child who is taking Prednisone doesn't exactly
wear a sign that explains the tantrum to the casual observer, it is wise not
to judge. You bring up a good point.
--
You're telling Miss Judge Everyone not to judge?
No, she is saying that more people should be like me and NOT judge parents
of tantrumy kids in the store.
--S.
Tin@
2009-08-24 23:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Suzanne D.
Yes. I'm sure that since a child who is taking Prednisone doesn't exactly
wear a sign that explains the tantrum to the casual observer, it is wise not
to judge. You bring up a good point.
--
You're telling Miss Judge Everyone not to judge?
No, she is saying that more people should be like me and NOT judge parents
of tantrumy kids in the store.
--S.
Too bad she's missed how much you do judge other parents, even if not
on this particular aspect.
Vandar
2009-08-23 21:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by fmomoon
Okay, but no one here is getting after those of us who have spanked.
I tend not to say anything because, as I said, I know I will no doubt
take a lot of heat.
But your repeated mention of it not being popular is almost
apologetic, as if you KNOW you have to placate the non-spankers before
you mention it.
--S.
I apologize to no one about my choices. No, I'm just sensitive that
others don't agree with me. Not everyone enjoys being argumentative.
The last thing I want to do is open yet another unsolvable issue to a
never ending debate. Don't we have enough of that around here? I never
have said I am the be all that ends all when it comes to raising
children. I did what worked for me and, although I'm sure I made some
mistakes, that's all I can do. My assumption is that most parents do
the same thing.
I remember one time when I was around 11-ish, I called my mother a bitch
within earshot of my father. When I heard him coming, I took off running
down the hallway toward my bedroom. I took about three steps and
*wallop!* upside the head. I bounced off both walls and hit the floor.
Stunned, I stood up and stumbled into my room "to think about what I'd
done" and try to figure out how he got there so damn fast.

And yeah... I never called her that again. :)
Lesmond
2009-08-23 22:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by fmomoon
Okay, but no one here is getting after those of us who have spanked.
I tend not to say anything because, as I said, I know I will no doubt
take a lot of heat.
But your repeated mention of it not being popular is almost
apologetic, as if you KNOW you have to placate the non-spankers before
you mention it.
--S.
I apologize to no one about my choices. No, I'm just sensitive that
others don't agree with me. Not everyone enjoys being argumentative.
The last thing I want to do is open yet another unsolvable issue to a
never ending debate. Don't we have enough of that around here? I never
have said I am the be all that ends all when it comes to raising
children. I did what worked for me and, although I'm sure I made some
mistakes, that's all I can do. My assumption is that most parents do
the same thing.
I remember one time when I was around 11-ish, I called my mother a bitch
within earshot of my father. When I heard him coming, I took off running
down the hallway toward my bedroom. I took about three steps and
*wallop!* upside the head. I bounced off both walls and hit the floor.
Stunned, I stood up and stumbled into my room "to think about what I'd
done" and try to figure out how he got there so damn fast.
And yeah... I never called her that again. :)
But did you think it?



--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.
Cheri
2009-08-23 22:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
I remember one time when I was around 11-ish, I called my mother a bitch
within earshot of my father. When I heard him coming, I took off running
down the hallway toward my bedroom. I took about three steps and *wallop!*
upside the head. I bounced off both walls and hit the floor. Stunned, I
stood up and stumbled into my room "to think about what I'd done" and try
to figure out how he got there so damn fast.
And yeah... I never called her that again. :)
I never did it in ear shot that's for sure. My mother had a far reaching
left handed *wallop* that was well respected. I just bet you never called
her that again. LOL My older brother picked the saying up in the AF and
always said our mom believed in "wall to wall counseling" when all else
failed. :-)

Cheri
Suzanne D.
2009-08-23 22:05:30 UTC
Permalink
You, Suzanne, are very wrong. Ill behaved children are totally the
responsibility of the parents, whether you wish to accept it or not.
By the way, is it the responsibility of the parents if the poor behavior
comes as a result of behavior-altering drugs? Are parents who give their
children life-extending drugs that make them have public tantrums bad
parents?
--S.
Thanatos
2009-08-23 23:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Yesterday on the news I saw an television ad from England on
texting
while driving. Three girls and a baby are in a car, motoring
down
the
road, having fun, giggling, and texting while driving. The car
veers
over the middle and gets slammed head-on and the girls heads
rock
back
and forth and the airbags explode while the car gets turned into
oncoming traffic and another car nails it from the side. The
three
passengers are dead and it shows the emergency workers using the
jaws of
life in an attempt to get the driver free. The ad is pretty
graphic
but
the intent is get noticed.
Just last month, as of July 1st it is illegal to text while
driving
here in Virginia. The same new law also band reading while
driving.
Why do we need these ridiculous laws?
Because there will be someone capable of finding a loophole around
them
in such a way as to render most of them already on the books as
useless.
Don't get me wrong, buddy, we agree but pragmatically......
Look at the guy who single handedly appears to have beaten the DWI
law
in the Commonwealth a few weeks back because the examiner wasn't
present
for cross-examination?
That's not a loophole, that's basic Constitutional Law 101. A defendant
has the right to confront his/her accuser. A 1L law student could have
told them that. The fact that Virginia has been operating in an
unconstitutional manner for a decade or more speaks more to the
incompetence of the state administration than anything else.
Ah, but it also speaks to the inability of our VA lawyers to find such
loopholes as well, doesn't it?
It's not a "loophole", Bob. It's rock solid constitutional law. One of
the fundamental freedoms we're guaranteed as citizens.
Yes, I agree. However, again, why did it take VA lawyers so long for
just one of them to make the argument? Shouldn't one of them, most all
of them, hit that state law in the very first case it was used?
One would think, but if no one bothers to challenge it, the courts can't
do it anything about it on their own.
Thanatos
2009-08-23 23:33:29 UTC
Permalink
And even if the recidivism rate for sex offenses is
high, there's a bunch of offenses that are right behind
it, coming close seconds and thirds. Why not track those
people, too? Why only the number one slot?
Maybe we should.
But because most real sex offenders prey on our children
and women, they have been singled out compared to other
criminals.
So some citizens are more important than others?
Some are just considered to be more precious by our society.
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-25 10:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment in
1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law for
the past 200+ years.

Your grasp of constitutional law is really suspect by your comments.


- Peter
Thanatos
2009-08-25 11:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment in
1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law for
the past 200+ years.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. The Constitution itself has
required equality under the law, even if it wasn't put into practice.
The Amendments only reinforced that. But hey, if it makes you happy (and
I'm sure it won't because it won't let you avoid the actual point under
discussion, as you did above), I'll go with the Equal Protection Clause,
which requires equal treatment under the law no matter the personal
feelings of the populace as to which citizens are more important than
others.
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-25 19:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment in
1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law for
the past 200+ years.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. The Constitution itself has
required equality under the law, even if it wasn't put into practice.
The Amendments only reinforced that.
Ah... That's a good one. That made me chuckle. Those Amendments only
reinforced what was already there. Right....

Those Constitutional Amendments were *needed* because the Constitution
*needed* to be amended to ensure that *everyone* had equal rights under the
law. They weren't redundant or superfluous. Nice try...


- Peter
Thanatos
2009-08-26 02:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment in
1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law for
the past 200+ years.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. The Constitution itself has
required equality under the law, even if it wasn't put into practice.
The Amendments only reinforced that.
Ah... That's a good one. That made me chuckle. Those Amendments only
reinforced what was already there. Right....
Those Constitutional Amendments were *needed* because the Constitution
*needed* to be amended to ensure that *everyone* had equal rights under the
law. They weren't redundant or superfluous. Nice try...
And of course you completely avoided the point under discussion once
again. I suppose I'll have to restate it for you:

The Equal Protection Clause requires equal treatment under the law for
everyone no matter the personal feelings of the populace as to which
citizens are more important than others.
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-26 22:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment
in 1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law
for the past 200+ years.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. The Constitution itself has
required equality under the law, even if it wasn't put into practice.
The Amendments only reinforced that.
Ah... That's a good one. That made me chuckle. Those Amendments only
reinforced what was already there. Right....
Those Constitutional Amendments were *needed* because the Constitution
*needed* to be amended to ensure that *everyone* had equal rights under the
law. They weren't redundant or superfluous. Nice try...
And of course you completely avoided the point under discussion once
The Equal Protection Clause requires equal treatment under the law for
everyone no matter the personal feelings of the populace as to which
citizens are more important than others.
I'm only taking issue with your assertion that everyone was equal under the
law for 200+ years. I've already shown to you that was false. And in
regards to the Equal Protection Clause, that was part of the 14th Amendment
that was ratified in 1868, only 141 years ago, not 200+ years ago.


- Peter
Thanatos
2009-08-26 22:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thanatos
Of course. Everyone has people they consider to be more precious than
all the others. The law, however, doesn't (or, more properly, shouldn't)
treat anyone as more important than anyone else. The Constitution
requires it. According to 200+ years of constitutional precedent,
everyone is equal under the law.
For 200+ years, everyone is equal under the law? Not by a long shot.
Please get your facts straight. Women didn't have the same rights as men
for a long time. They couldn't even vote for President until the 19th
Amendment was passed in 1920 (less than 90 years ago). And black men and
other minority men couldn't vote until the passage of the 15th Amendment
in 1870. So please don't claim that everyone has been equal under the law
for the past 200+ years.
Wow, way to completely miss the point. The Constitution itself has
required equality under the law, even if it wasn't put into practice.
The Amendments only reinforced that.
Ah... That's a good one. That made me chuckle. Those Amendments only
reinforced what was already there. Right....
Those Constitutional Amendments were *needed* because the Constitution
*needed* to be amended to ensure that *everyone* had equal rights under the
law. They weren't redundant or superfluous. Nice try...
And of course you completely avoided the point under discussion once
The Equal Protection Clause requires equal treatment under the law for
everyone no matter the personal feelings of the populace as to which
citizens are more important than others.
I'm only taking issue with your assertion that everyone was equal under the
law for 200+ years.
So you're basically admitting you're focused on an irrelevancy rather
than addressing the actual issue under discussion.

So be it.

Thanatos
2009-08-23 23:38:56 UTC
Permalink
In article
But because most real sex offenders prey on our children
and women, they have been singled out compared to other
criminals.
So some citizens are more important than others?
You really don't have any idea what it's like to be small and
weak, do you?
What you apparently really don't understand is that when it comes to
constitutional law, "knowing what it's like to be small and weak" is
about as irrelevant as the frequency with which zebras hump.
Crimes against children should most assuredly be prosecuted to
at least the fullest extent of the law.
But crimes against adults shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law?

Why is that?

"Well, Mr. Smith, we would have fully prosecuted that guy who beat you
and carjacked you, but it was brought to my attention that you're
neither a child, nor are you female. Since you're not small and weak,
you're not entitled to the full protection of the law, so we let the guy
go with just a fine and made him promise not to do it again."
Doesn't seem to be in line with the Constitution.
When children have the right to bear arms, then I say say
every man or child for themselves.
That's an amazing non-sequitur. Well done!
Peach
2009-08-24 12:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Do you use "real" popcorn or do you nuke it?  It seem such an easy dish to
make; add oil to bottom of pan, add kernals, heat and shake..I never use
that fake nuke stuff with fake butter.
I get a headache when eating "fake" popcorn.  I remember when I was talking
with some in-laws about how I pop popcorn the old-fashioned way (shaking it
in a pan and oil over a burner) instead of with a  popcorn popper, and
someone said, "Who uses a popcorn popper any more?"  Apparently all they
ever ate was the microwaved stuff in bags!
--S.
I still pop on the stove, too....my daughter's friends call it my
"special popcorn." ;-)

Peach
Salad
2009-08-24 13:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Do you use "real" popcorn or do you nuke it? It seem such an easy dish to
make; add oil to bottom of pan, add kernals, heat and shake..I never use
that fake nuke stuff with fake butter.
I get a headache when eating "fake" popcorn. I remember when I was talking
with some in-laws about how I pop popcorn the old-fashioned way (shaking it
in a pan and oil over a burner) instead of with a popcorn popper, and
someone said, "Who uses a popcorn popper any more?" Apparently all they
ever ate was the microwaved stuff in bags!
--S.
I still pop on the stove, too....my daughter's friends call it my
"special popcorn." ;-)
Peach
A year or so ago a friend asked me if I had any popcorn he could borrow.
I said I only had the kernal type, not microwave. That's fine, can
you bring it over? So I did. He put in the oil and about a 1/2 cup of
kernals in the pan and fired up the oven. The corn started popping and
the lid came off the top of the pan and popcorn when flying everywhere.
Instead of taking the pan off the heat he attempted to keep the lid
on. Didn't work. It was kind of funny.
Peach
2009-08-24 13:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Salad
Post by Peach
Do you use "real" popcorn or do you nuke it?  It seem such an easy dish to
make; add oil to bottom of pan, add kernals, heat and shake..I never use
that fake nuke stuff with fake butter.
I get a headache when eating "fake" popcorn.  I remember when I was talking
with some in-laws about how I pop popcorn the old-fashioned way (shaking it
in a pan and oil over a burner) instead of with a  popcorn popper, and
someone said, "Who uses a popcorn popper any more?"  Apparently all they
ever ate was the microwaved stuff in bags!
--S.
I still pop on the stove, too....my daughter's friends call it my
"special popcorn."  ;-)
Peach
A year or so ago a friend asked me if I had any popcorn he could borrow.
  I said I only had the kernal type, not microwave.  That's fine, can
you bring it over?  So I did.  He put in the oil and about a 1/2 cup of
kernals in the pan and fired up the oven.  The corn started popping and
the lid came off the top of the pan and popcorn when flying everywhere.
  Instead of taking the pan off the heat he attempted to keep the lid
on.  Didn't work.  It was kind of funny.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have one of those groovy crank pots with the thing that turns on the
bottom. :-) It is definitely a lost art.

Peach
Salad
2009-08-24 13:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Salad
Post by Peach
Do you use "real" popcorn or do you nuke it? It seem such an easy dish to
make; add oil to bottom of pan, add kernals, heat and shake..I never use
that fake nuke stuff with fake butter.
I get a headache when eating "fake" popcorn. I remember when I was talking
with some in-laws about how I pop popcorn the old-fashioned way (shaking it
in a pan and oil over a burner) instead of with a popcorn popper, and
someone said, "Who uses a popcorn popper any more?" Apparently all they
ever ate was the microwaved stuff in bags!
--S.
I still pop on the stove, too....my daughter's friends call it my
"special popcorn." ;-)
Peach
A year or so ago a friend asked me if I had any popcorn he could borrow.
I said I only had the kernal type, not microwave. That's fine, can
you bring it over? So I did. He put in the oil and about a 1/2 cup of
kernals in the pan and fired up the oven. The corn started popping and
the lid came off the top of the pan and popcorn when flying everywhere.
Instead of taking the pan off the heat he attempted to keep the lid
on. Didn't work. It was kind of funny.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I have one of those groovy crank pots with the thing that turns on the
bottom. :-) It is definitely a lost art.
Peach
Yup. About 3 years ago a little girl from the South Pacific visited our
home. I taught her how to make popcorn and her eyes got so wide, she'd
never seen it made the old fashioned way. I gave her a jar of Orville
Reddenbocker to take back with her to share with her siblings.
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 17:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Salad
Yup. About 3 years ago a little girl from the South Pacific visited our
home. I taught her how to make popcorn and her eyes got so wide, she'd
never seen it made the old fashioned way.
Damn, I'm so old-fashioned that not only do I pop it on the stove with oil,
I even grow it myself in my own yard!
--S.
Peach
2009-08-24 12:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Moni.  But that's pretty much what Suzanne and I have been
saying
all along.
And I'm glad that you acknowledge that it *is* possible to understand
what
the tantrum is about.
I've been saying that all along.  I believe my first post said that you
need to try and figure out what is happening first.
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.  
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.

Peach
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 17:42:42 UTC
Permalink
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.
_______________________________ news:720bc8f3-b6c4-4526-90ae-***@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
Suzanne: "Frankly, I'm not even a huge advocate of removing them from the
store in all cases. If the tantrum seems to be brought on by some issue that
honestly warrants special attention (such as tiredness or illness), then
it's appropriate to have some alone time together to comfort the child until
he gains control over himself. But if the tantrum is about being at the
store in the first place (or more generally, the act of his being forced to
do something he doesn't want to do; in this case, shopping), then leaving
the store is giving in to him!"

Peach: "How are you going to know what his/her tantrum is about? Are you
skilled in mind-reading, too? (Being a "wise parent," and all.)"

Why did you ask (in a snarky tone) how you are going to know what the
tantrum about if you believe it is possible to know what the tantrum is
about? Were you being deliberately antagonistic then, or are you being
argumentative now?
--S.
Peach
2009-08-24 17:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.
Suzanne: "Frankly, I'm not even a huge advocate of removing them from the
store in all cases. If the tantrum seems to be brought on by some issue that
honestly warrants special attention (such as tiredness or illness), then
it's appropriate to have some alone time together to comfort the child until
he gains control over himself. But if the tantrum is about being at the
store in the first place (or more generally, the act of his being forced to
do something he doesn't want to do; in this case, shopping), then leaving
the store is giving in to him!"
Peach: "How are you going to know what his/her tantrum is about?  Are you
skilled in mind-reading, too? (Being a "wise parent," and all.)"
Why did you ask (in a snarky tone) how you are going to know what the
tantrum about if you believe it is possible to know what the tantrum is
about?  Were you being deliberately antagonistic then, or are you being
argumentative now?
--S.
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child." The statement you just quoted from me says nothing
of the sort. I just like how you twist things... you have a real
knack at that.

I agree that the tiredness/illness/hunger triggers should be a no-
brainer. Why would a parent take a child in any of those conditions
anyway, if they can help it? But as far as the other, not as clear
reasons, I stand by my original question. How are you going to know?
(When, half the time, they don't even know themselves....)

Peach
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 18:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.
Suzanne: "Frankly, I'm not even a huge advocate of removing them from the
store in all cases. If the tantrum seems to be brought on by some issue that
honestly warrants special attention (such as tiredness or illness), then
it's appropriate to have some alone time together to comfort the child until
he gains control over himself. But if the tantrum is about being at the
store in the first place (or more generally, the act of his being forced to
do something he doesn't want to do; in this case, shopping), then leaving
the store is giving in to him!"
Peach: "How are you going to know what his/her tantrum is about? Are you
skilled in mind-reading, too? (Being a "wise parent," and all.)"
Why did you ask (in a snarky tone) how you are going to know what the
tantrum about if you believe it is possible to know what the tantrum is
about? Were you being deliberately antagonistic then, or are you being
argumentative now?
--S.
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."

I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words. Very, very interesting.
I think your out-of-the-blue assessment says way more about your feelings
about yourself than about me. I have always suspected that you feel
somewhat inferior to and/or threatened by me in the parenting department,
and your ongoing antagonism in this thread, your constant contradictions,
and now your sudden assertion that I am saying you don't know your child
(despite my never having said this) reveal that this is something that
bothers you deep down. Therefore, I will not do anything to make you feel
bad about your parenting skills any more.
--S.
topcat
2009-08-24 18:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.
Suzanne: "Frankly, I'm not even a huge advocate of removing them from the
store in all cases. If the tantrum seems to be brought on by some issue that
honestly warrants special attention (such as tiredness or illness), then
it's appropriate to have some alone time together to comfort the child until
he gains control over himself. But if the tantrum is about being at the
store in the first place (or more generally, the act of his being forced to
do something he doesn't want to do; in this case, shopping), then leaving
the store is giving in to him!"
Peach: "How are you going to know what his/her tantrum is about? Are you
skilled in mind-reading, too? (Being a "wise parent," and all.)"
Why did you ask (in a snarky tone) how you are going to know what the
tantrum about if you believe it is possible to know what the tantrum is
about? Were you being deliberately antagonistic then, or are you being
argumentative now?
--S.
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words. Very, very
interesting. I think your out-of-the-blue assessment says way more about
your feelings about yourself than about me. I have always suspected that
you feel somewhat inferior to and/or threatened by me in the parenting
department, and your ongoing antagonism in this thread, your constant
contradictions, and now your sudden assertion that I am saying you don't
know your child (despite my never having said this) reveal that this is
something that bothers you deep down. Therefore, I will not do anything
to make you feel bad about your parenting skills any more.
--S.
And what should we take from your constant snipping of peoples posts?

TC
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 19:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
And what should we take from your constant snipping of peoples posts?
That I reply to what my reply is about and don't care about the rest.
--S.
Tin@
2009-08-24 23:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Suzanne D.
Post by topcat
And what should we take from your constant snipping of peoples posts?
That I reply to what my reply is about and don't care about the rest.
--S.
And that you snip it to fit your lying.
Peach
2009-08-24 18:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
She found it odd that you would mention this in a post to me, of all people,
since I was the one who said and has kept saying that one needs to know what
the tantrum is about before you can deal with it, and Peach said it wasn't
possible to know what a tantrum was about.
I did not say this.... I said it can be a myriad of things, but thanks
for rehashing it.
Suzanne: "Frankly, I'm not even a huge advocate of removing them from the
store in all cases. If the tantrum seems to be brought on by some issue that
honestly warrants special attention (such as tiredness or illness), then
it's appropriate to have some alone time together to comfort the child until
he gains control over himself. But if the tantrum is about being at the
store in the first place (or more generally, the act of his being forced to
do something he doesn't want to do; in this case, shopping), then leaving
the store is giving in to him!"
Peach: "How are you going to know what his/her tantrum is about? Are you
skilled in mind-reading, too? (Being a "wise parent," and all.)"
Why did you ask (in a snarky tone) how you are going to know what the
tantrum about if you believe it is possible to know what the tantrum is
about? Were you being deliberately antagonistic then, or are you being
argumentative now?
--S.
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do?  That's news to me!  I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.  
Are you kidding me?? You took my quote and interpreted it to mean
that I didn't know my child.... that is twisting a person's words and
reading motives into them. So shame on YOU, Suzanne.

Very, very interesting.
Post by Peach
I think your out-of-the-blue assessment says way more about your feelings
about yourself than about me.  I have always suspected that you feel
somewhat inferior to and/or threatened by me in the parenting department,
and your ongoing antagonism in this thread, your constant contradictions,
and now your sudden assertion that I am saying you don't know your child
(despite my never having said this) reveal that this is something that
bothers you deep down.  Therefore, I will not do anything to make you feel
bad about your parenting skills any more.
I don't feel the least bit inferior to you, Suzanne. In fact, I have a
lot of confidence in my parenting skills....the way my daughter is at
age 14 helps me with that. Don't try that "looking down at me"
approach either. My feelings towards you are pretty plain, and I
refuse to get any more personal than that. (Because, God knows, I
could...)

Peach
Callen
2009-08-24 18:22:29 UTC
Permalink
.... this stupid, ridiculous, meanspirited disintegration of the
original subject matter will split into multiple headers which I will
no longer even be tempted to read...

Callen in VA
Peach
2009-08-24 18:24:47 UTC
Permalink
....  this stupid, ridiculous, meanspirited disintegration of the
original subject matter will split into multiple headers which I will
no longer even be tempted to read...
Callen in VA
Yay!! Let's keep it going until it splits.

Peach
topcat
2009-08-24 18:32:38 UTC
Permalink
.... this stupid, ridiculous, meanspirited disintegration of the
original subject matter will split into multiple headers which I will
no longer even be tempted to read...
Callen in VA
Yay!! Let's keep it going until it splits.


************

Ok.

TC
SLGreg
2009-08-24 18:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
.... this stupid, ridiculous, meanspirited disintegration of the
original subject matter will split into multiple headers which I will
no longer even be tempted to read...
Callen in VA
Yay!! Let's keep it going until it splits.
************
Ok.
TC
+1

greg
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 19:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.
Are you kidding me?? You took my quote and interpreted it to mean
that I didn't know my child....
________________________

Where?
--S.
Peach
2009-08-24 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.
Are you kidding me??  You took my quote and interpreted it to mean
that I didn't know my child....
________________________
Where?
--S.
Ryan did a good job in showing how you demeaned with your posts and
elitist attitudes. I've come to expect it from you. Suzanne, I am
really done with this thread.... as I've said in other threads with
you that I've "bowed out of," it's not fun to have a debate with
someone who reads motives that weren't there or twists a question to
mean something entirely different than what was intended. I'm not
"bowing out" because you disagree with me, or any of the other finger
pointing you did earlier towards those who chose to stop posting. I'm
bowing out because it is pointless to continue this discussion. I
seriously think you have issues psychologically, and that's why things
always morph "out of control" in many of the threads you participate
in.

Peach
Suzanne D.
2009-08-25 00:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.
Are you kidding me?? You took my quote and interpreted it to mean
that I didn't know my child....
________________________
Where?
--S.
Ryan did a good job in showing how you demeaned with your posts and
elitist attitudes.
_____________________

We can talk about attitudes if you like, "sweetie," but this doesn't answer
the question of WHERE I interpreted your quote to mean that you didn't know
your child. Interesting that you didn't answer that one.
--S.
Ryan
2009-08-24 18:28:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:08:51 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.
While you may not have said those exact words, you certainly did imply
that Peach did not understand her daughter and were rather demeaning
in your response to her about child rearing. Here is an example:


On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:43:10 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
I am sorry child care confuses you so much, But then, you were the one who
said it wasn't possible to know what a tantrum is about, so I guess this
explains why you don't understand there are many different ways of dealing
with tantrums according to the situation...
Let me simplify this for you. A wise parent reacts to a tantrum in the way
that is most fitting for that particular tantrum. If the child is cranky
due to hunger or tiredness or something else he cannot control, then
REMOVING THE CHILD to a quiet place for comport is appropriate. if, on the
other hand, the tantrum is about not wanting to be there at all, then
removing the child is giving in to him.
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
Very, very interesting.
I think your out-of-the-blue assessment says way more about your feelings
about yourself than about me. I have always suspected that you feel
somewhat inferior to and/or threatened by me in the parenting department,
and your ongoing antagonism in this thread, your constant contradictions,
and now your sudden assertion that I am saying you don't know your child
(despite my never having said this) reveal that this is something that
bothers you deep down.
I am sure that Peach is quite envious of your parenting "skills".

After all, you decided that since you know more than pediatricians
about your children that you did not need to regularly see one. And
you failed to understand the significance of developmental delays
resulting in delay of diagnosis. Then you blame the doctors for the
delay.

One of the most important parenting skills is to protect one's child
against dangers. One big danger is pertussis. The vaccine is safe and
effective. You chose to not vaccinated because "my whole family got
pertussis and it was no big deal".
Post by Peach
Therefore, I will not do anything to make you feel
bad about your parenting skills any more.
Suzanne often criticizes others for their bad parenting which may
reflect insecurity about her own parenting skills. But I won't do
anything to make her feel worse about her parenting skills:-)

Ryan

----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006


Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj1Xn3VB818
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 19:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:08:51 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
You keep throwing it out there, Suzanne, that somehow Peach "doesn't
know her child."
I do? That's news to me! I'd ask for a quote, but since there is none, I
can only say I find it interesting that this is where you would
automatically take my repeating of your own words.
While you may not have said those exact words, you certainly did imply
that Peach did not understand her daughter and were rather demeaning
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:43:10 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
I am sorry child care confuses you so much, But then, you were the one who
said it wasn't possible to know what a tantrum is about, so I guess this
explains why you don't understand there are many different ways of dealing
with tantrums according to the situation...
Let me simplify this for you. A wise parent reacts to a tantrum in the way
that is most fitting for that particular tantrum. If the child is cranky
due to hunger or tiredness or something else he cannot control, then
REMOVING THE CHILD to a quiet place for comport is appropriate. if, on the
other hand, the tantrum is about not wanting to be there at all, then
removing the child is giving in to him.
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
What ELSE am I supposed to say when the girl asks how it is possible to
interpret the cause of a tantrum and acts as though she hasn't been paying
attention to things I have been quite clearly saying? I can only go off of
what she gives me. If she is going to either be stupid or pretend to be
stupid ("Color me confused."), then I am going to reply to her as if she is
stupid.
--S.
Ryan
2009-08-24 20:33:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:36:30 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Suzanne D.
Post by Peach
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
What ELSE am I supposed to say when the girl asks how it is possible to
interpret the cause of a tantrum and acts as though she hasn't been paying
attention to things I have been quite clearly saying? I can only go off of
what she gives me. If she is going to either be stupid or pretend to be
stupid ("Color me confused."), then I am going to reply to her as if she is
stupid.
Peach accused you of implying that you said that she did not
understand her daughter. You said you never said anything of the sort
and that she must be insecure. I then produced a quote where you DID
say something of the sort.

Now you are justifying what you said, but the point that you implied
that Peach does not understand her daughter stands, you denial
notwithstanding.

Would you like me to draw a picture for you?

So are you stupid or just pretending to be so?

Ryan


----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006


Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj1Xn3VB818
topcat
2009-08-24 20:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:36:30 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Suzanne D.
Post by Peach
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
What ELSE am I supposed to say when the girl asks how it is possible to
interpret the cause of a tantrum and acts as though she hasn't been paying
attention to things I have been quite clearly saying? I can only go off of
what she gives me. If she is going to either be stupid or pretend to be
stupid ("Color me confused."), then I am going to reply to her as if she is
stupid.
Peach accused you of implying that you said that she did not
understand her daughter. You said you never said anything of the sort
and that she must be insecure. I then produced a quote where you DID
say something of the sort.
Now you are justifying what you said, but the point that you implied
that Peach does not understand her daughter stands, you denial
notwithstanding.
Would you like me to draw a picture for you?
So are you stupid or just pretending to be so?
Don't answer these questions Suzy-anne. Plead the 5th.

TC
Lesmond
2009-08-24 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:36:30 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Suzanne D.
Post by Peach
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
What ELSE am I supposed to say when the girl asks how it is possible to
interpret the cause of a tantrum and acts as though she hasn't been paying
attention to things I have been quite clearly saying? I can only go off of
what she gives me. If she is going to either be stupid or pretend to be
stupid ("Color me confused."), then I am going to reply to her as if she is
stupid.
Peach accused you of implying that you said that she did not
understand her daughter. You said you never said anything of the sort
and that she must be insecure. I then produced a quote where you DID
say something of the sort.
Now you are justifying what you said, but the point that you implied
that Peach does not understand her daughter stands, you denial
notwithstanding.
Would you like me to draw a picture for you?
So are you stupid or just pretending to be so?
Look, this isn't my fight. But Suzanne reposted a quote by Peach in which
Peach stated, as a matter of fact, that you cannot know what the tantrum is
about unless you are a mind reader.

If Peach chooses to recant that statement, saying that she spoke in haste, or
answered imcompletely, fine. But simply reposting her words is not twisting
her words.



--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.
Suzanne D.
2009-08-25 00:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesmond
Look, this isn't my fight. But Suzanne reposted a quote by Peach in which
Peach stated, as a matter of fact, that you cannot know what the tantrum is
about unless you are a mind reader.
If Peach chooses to recant that statement, saying that she spoke in haste, or
answered imcompletely, fine. But simply reposting her words is not twisting
her words.
As I said, I can only go off of what she gives me. If she is going to ask
me how it is possible to know what a tantrum is about, I can only assume she
doesn't know how it is possible to know what a tantrum is about. As Lesmond
says, if Peach wants to take that statement back, she may. But she can't
pretend that she didn't say it, nor that I misinterpreted it.
--S.
Peach
2009-08-25 01:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:36:30 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Suzanne D.
Post by Peach
Do you understand it yet, or will I have to draw a picture?
What ELSE am I supposed to say when the girl asks how it is possible to
interpret the cause of a tantrum and acts as though she hasn't been paying
attention to things I have been quite clearly saying?  I can only go off of
what she gives me.  If she is going to either be stupid or pretend to be
stupid ("Color me confused."), then I am going to reply to her as if she is
stupid.
Peach accused you of implying that you said that she did not
understand her daughter. You said you never said anything of the sort
and that she must be insecure. I then produced a quote where you DID
say something of the sort.
Now you are justifying what you said, but the point that you implied
that Peach does not understand her daughter stands, you denial
notwithstanding.
Would you like me to draw a picture for you?
So are you stupid or just pretending to be so?
Look, this isn't my fight.  But Suzanne reposted a quote by Peach in which
Peach stated, as a matter of fact, that you cannot know what the tantrum is
about unless you are a mind reader.
If Peach chooses to recant that statement, saying that she spoke in haste, or
answered imcompletely, fine.  But simply reposting her words is not twisting
her words.
--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
She reposted my words and then added her interpretation of them.... I
clarified that *apart from hunger and tiredness* that one can't always
know the source of the tantrum. And I stand by that.....sometimes, a
toddler doesn't even know. I know you are the staunch defender of
Suzanne, but I'm sure she can fight her own battles.

Peach
Suzanne D.
2009-08-25 05:00:59 UTC
Permalink
"Peach" <***@lpbroadband.net> wrote in message
news:6ad20fbd-5789-4cbc-a12f-
She reposted my words and then added her interpretation of them.... I
clarified that *apart from hunger and tiredness* that one can't always
know the source of the tantrum.
_______________

Well, actually you didn't say that, but okay. Maybe you said one thing and
meant the complete opposite, and expected people to know what you meant.
Post by Peach
I know you are the staunch defender of
Suzanne, but I'm sure she can fight her own battles.
________________

Actually, Lesmond and I have been on vastly opposite sides of arguments from
time to time. One thing I can say about her, she doesn't show favoritism
(which is sometimes bad for me!).
--S.
Ryan
2009-08-25 07:12:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:00:59 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
I know you are the staunch defender of
Suzanne, but I'm sure she can fight her own battles.
________________
Actually, Lesmond and I have been on vastly opposite sides of arguments from
time to time.
I assure you that Lesmond will defend you even if it means
embarrassing herself in the process. She already has.
Post by Peach
One thing I can say about her, she doesn't show favoritism
(which is sometimes bad for me!).
Yeah. You need all the enablers you can find:-)

Ryan



----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006


Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj1Xn3VB818
Lesmond
2009-08-25 14:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:00:59 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
I know you are the staunch defender of
Suzanne, but I'm sure she can fight her own battles.
________________
Actually, Lesmond and I have been on vastly opposite sides of arguments from
time to time.
I assure you that Lesmond will defend you even if it means
embarrassing herself in the process. She already has.
Post by Peach
One thing I can say about her, she doesn't show favoritism
(which is sometimes bad for me!).
Yeah. You need all the enablers you can find:-)
It bothers me when someone is used as a punching bag, not for what she's
saying, but because of how people feel personally about her.



--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.
Ryan
2009-08-25 16:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:29:28 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
Post by Lesmond
It bothers me when someone is used as a punching bag, not for what she's
saying, but because of how people feel personally about her.
Oh, the irony!

Ryan
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006


Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj1Xn3VB818
Tin@
2009-08-26 01:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesmond
Post by Ryan
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:00:59 -0600, "Suzanne D."
Post by Peach
Post by Peach
I know you are the staunch defender of
Suzanne, but I'm sure she can fight her own battles.
________________
Actually, Lesmond and I have been on vastly opposite sides of arguments from
time to time.
I assure you that Lesmond will defend you even if it means
embarrassing herself in the process. She already has.
Post by Peach
One thing I can say about her, she doesn't show favoritism
(which is sometimes bad for me!).
Yeah. You need all the enablers you can find:-)
It bothers me when someone is used as a punching bag, not for what she's
saying, but because of how people feel personally about her.
'

If she didnt wear a big sign that said "PUNCHING BAG, HIT ME...AGAIN"
then people wouldnt, but she sets herself up, over and over.
Post by Lesmond
--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bob Rudd
2009-08-24 13:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: High School Kids No Longer Shower after Playing Sports or Gym Class?
Newsgroups: alt.tv.american-idol
The five additional minutes would have further ruined the meals of
others. Plus, like I said, it was not a meal such would have reheated
in a tasty manner.
I can't imagine food that can't be reheated satisfactorily.
--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.
In this case, it was Chinese. YMMV, Lesmond, but ours....maybe because
of what we generally like to order, it doesn't reheat well.
--
Sometimes, when Monday rolls around....you just need to count, "one."
Sanna
2009-08-24 15:27:49 UTC
Permalink
I just added this to my, "Just When You Think You've Heard
Everything" list ...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2009/07/shower_together_at_school_no_w.html#more
---
Zob
This thread has sure taken on a life of its own. Almost 700 posts in
four days!
---
Something tells me I didn't really miss much when I was on vacation. ;)

--
Bob Rudd
2009-08-24 15:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanna
Something tells me I didn't really miss much when I was on vacation. ;)
I hope it was a great vacation!
--
Sometimes, when Monday rolls around....you just need to count, "one."
Peach
2009-08-24 15:53:42 UTC
Permalink
I just added this to my, "Just When You Think You've Heard
Everything" list ...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2009/07/shower_together_at_...
---
Zob
This thread has sure taken on a life of its own.  Almost 700 posts in
four days!
---
Something tells me I didn't really miss much when I was on vacation.  ;)
--
No...you did not. :-)

Peach
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-24 19:22:44 UTC
Permalink
The five additional minutes would have further ruined the meals of
others. Plus, like I said, it was not a meal such would have reheated
in a tasty manner.
I can't imagine food that can't be reheated satisfactorily.
I can imagine food that wouldn't be good when reheated. However, I
can't imagine any food that couldn't be reheated in a restaurant where I
would take a child!
Maybe you and Lesmond aren't as particular when it comes to the taste of
food compared to some of us, but I personally don't enjoy the taste of any
reheated burgers that had lettuce or tomatoes on them nor am I fond of the
taste of reheated burritos in general. Generally speaking any dish that
contains fresh raw vegetables doesn't usually fare well taste-wise when
reheated. They remain edible, but the taste, IMHO, has been definitely
degraded.


- Peter
Suzanne D.
2009-08-24 19:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Maybe you and Lesmond aren't as particular when it comes to the taste of
food compared to some of us, but I personally don't enjoy the taste of any
reheated burgers that had lettuce or tomatoes on them nor am I fond of the
taste of reheated burritos in general. Generally speaking any dish that
contains fresh raw vegetables doesn't usually fare well taste-wise when
reheated. They remain edible, but the taste, IMHO, has been definitely
degraded.
Well, I'd still want to take it with me, if only to eat in the car on the
way home.
--S.
Lesmond
2009-08-24 20:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
The five additional minutes would have further ruined the meals of
others. Plus, like I said, it was not a meal such would have reheated
in a tasty manner.
I can't imagine food that can't be reheated satisfactorily.
I can imagine food that wouldn't be good when reheated. However, I
can't imagine any food that couldn't be reheated in a restaurant where I
would take a child!
Maybe you and Lesmond aren't as particular when it comes to the taste of
food compared to some of us, but I personally don't enjoy the taste of any
reheated burgers that had lettuce or tomatoes on them nor am I fond of the
taste of reheated burritos in general. Generally speaking any dish that
contains fresh raw vegetables doesn't usually fare well taste-wise when
reheated. They remain edible, but the taste, IMHO, has been definitely
degraded.
You have to remove the raw veggies.

You should see me reheat a taco:

Everything gets scraped out. The meat, vegs and cheese are all
separated. The shell goes in the toaster oven. The meat goes into the
microwave. When the shell is crispy, the meat is added, then the cheese to
melt on top. Then add vegs and sauces.

It works fine!

If certain reheated foods are not to your taste, that's fine. I guess I'm
more of a gourmand than gourmet, regardless of how much I love Top Chef.



--
The house was full of wildlife and all the pies were gone.
Peter Lawrence
2009-08-24 21:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesmond
Post by Peter Lawrence
Maybe you and Lesmond aren't as particular when it comes to the taste of
food compared to some of us, but I personally don't enjoy the taste of any
reheated burgers that had lettuce or tomatoes on them nor am I fond of the
taste of reheated burritos in general. Generally speaking any dish that
contains fresh raw vegetables doesn't usually fare well taste-wise when
reheated. They remain edible, but the taste, IMHO, has been definitely
degraded.
You have to remove the raw veggies.
Everything gets scraped out. The meat, vegs and cheese are all
separated. The shell goes in the toaster oven. The meat goes into the
microwave. When the shell is crispy, the meat is added, then the cheese to
melt on top. Then add vegs and sauces.
It works fine!
Try disassembling and reassembling a half-eaten burrito! It's not pretty.

:)
Post by Lesmond
If certain reheated foods are not to your taste, that's fine. I guess I'm
more of a gourmand than gourmet, regardless of how much I love Top Chef.
Again, I think most re-heated foods are edible, but some are just not worth
the hassle (like how you reheat tacos) to reheat. Best not to have
leftovers for some food. YMMV.


- Peter
Tin@
2009-08-24 23:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesmond
Post by Peter Lawrence
The five additional minutes would have further ruined the meals of
others.  Plus, like I said, it was not a meal such would have reheated
in a tasty manner.
I can't imagine food that can't be reheated satisfactorily.
I can imagine food that wouldn't be good when reheated.  However, I
can't imagine any food that couldn't be reheated in a restaurant where I
would take a child!
Maybe you and Lesmond aren't as particular when it comes to the taste of
food compared to some of us, but I personally don't enjoy the taste of any
reheated burgers that had lettuce or tomatoes on them nor am I fond of the
taste of reheated burritos in general.  Generally speaking any dish that
contains fresh raw vegetables doesn't usually fare well taste-wise when
reheated.  They remain edible, but the taste, IMHO, has been definitely
degraded.
You have to remove the raw veggies.
        Everything gets scraped out.  The meat, vegs and cheese are all
separated.  The shell goes in the toaster oven.  The meat goes into the
microwave.  When the shell is crispy, the meat is added, then the cheese to
melt on top.  Then add vegs and sauces.
It works fine!
If certain reheated foods are not to your taste, that's fine.  I guess I'm
more of a gourmand than gourmet, regardless of how much I love Top Chef.
Way too much work for a taco. Hell, I'd rather just make a fresh one.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...