From: leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:25:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Sep30.234941.26391@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <6900@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>If I did it again I payed the price, I couldn't pull
>>that "I didn't know" crap.  Letting them get away with that kind of crap is
>>criminally wrong.  You're teaching them something very wrong, something
>>that will get them into big trouble sooner or later.
>
>We're not talking about "letting them get away with that kind of stuff",
>we're talking about someone getting killed. That's hardly what I call
>"getting away with it".

Once again you have missed the point.  If they aren't in the neighbor's
backyard illegally swimming then this isn't going to happen.  Well it
could, the parents of the children might have a pool.  But as long as
the children are taught to respect other peoples rights, wishes, and
property it will not happen.  Simply as that.  It really isn't that hard
to understand.

The problem is that some parents don't teach their children about
repect and then try to blame the neighbor.  He didn't want them in his
pool to begin with.  They came uninvited onto his propery, against his
wishes and orders, and you want to blame him.  They aren't his children.
They can tell him to get lost or the more typical "You aren't my mom
or dad, so I don't have to listen to you."  Only the parents can protect
their children by teaching them right and wrong.  He doesn't have the
authority to, so don't try to make him responsible for someone he has
no right to control.

The first thing you have to understand is that not everyone feels as you
do about this by definition bit.  You have stated that by definition
children are never responsible for their actions and lack of judgement.
Further, you have stated that they are, once again by definition, stupid
and careless.  They are to be held harmless when they do something
stupid and get hurt.  You have stated that any and all adults, related
or otherwise, are to be held accountable for the child's safety.  You
have assumed way too much.

All I can say to that is wake up and smell the coffee.  That is total
BS!  Your position on this only points out that you feel your children
have absolute and total priority over everything else.  Not very
realistic.  Your children maybe your sole reason for living, but I
can tell you right now they aren't mine.  I'm sure things in my life
that I feel are important you would shrug off in a heartbeat.  I'm
not trying to make you responsible for the things I enjoy that you
don't.

Everyone is different, nothing is wrong with that.  Just don't try to
force me to be responsible for your children without having any rights
to control their behavior.  That is a bit like taxation without
represention.  The very reason this country was founded.

The whole idea of sticking me with the liability for something you
wanted, created, enjoy, and should be protecting is wrong.  I never
wanted, created (I hope), enjoy, or volunteered to parent your
children.  You may have convinced yourself that I did, but I'm didn't.
Just dreaming up this by definition bit is real lame and I'm not going
to buy into it.

When you became a parent your life changed.  Your daily activities
changed, you take different vacations now, and I bet you don't spend
as much time with your friends.  This is all part of being a parent.
Nothing is wrong with any of this until you volunteer my services to
cover your butt.

Failing to control and educate your children is failure plain and
simple.  Cutting them loose in public places to run wild and annoy
people is a failure to properly educate and control your children.
Failure to teach them the value in staying off private property is a
major failure.  If they do these things you have failed.  Face up to
it.  Volunteering your neighbor as a backup plan is wrong.

If you enjoy being a parent great, but it was your choice.  I had
nothing to do with it, don't try to drag me into it.  I wasn't asked
when this whole thing started and I don't work for you.  So what makes
you think that I'm going to go along with your plan now?

>>Children of that age aren't that dumb, but if their parents let them get
>>away with acting dumb they will do it.  You have to teach them manners and
>>respect for other people's property at an early age.  If you don't you're
>
>This is all fine and good but you can't expect them to act like omniscient
>angels either. Especially when it comes to an attractive nuisance.

I don't expect them to act like anything on my propery.  That is the
whole point.  If you can't control them, why do you expect me to
shoulder the problems of their actions.  My only concern is that you
teach them to stay in areas where they are welcome and safe.  If I want
them in my pool I'll invite them over for a swim.  Otherwise they are
to stay out.  I will not be too shy about telling them that either.

If you can't control or trust your children then maybe you need to
change your parenting habits.  Either that or put up a fence to keep
them in an area you can control.  Changing what you are teaching them
is much wiser and effective.
Newsgroups: ba.general