Well, Frylock is still doing the same thing after all these years.
Heh. That would be a huge “yes”. 
I also missed a quote from a third thread. So…my post is well and truly messed up. :smack:
That said, he does still do this all the time.
After reading this thread, the “Tell me your kid (or you) turned out okay after this kind of atrocious behavior” makes a bit more sense.
Classic.
Can I invoke Gaudere’s law for this? 
I would say yes. Close enough at least.
Jim!
Did he really say pervert? Or did he say Prevert? I suspect he said Prevert. (and why does my tablet keep capitalizing Prevert but not pervert, and not the first letter of my sentences. who programmed this damned thing?)
Jesus.
I do have trouble communicating when people don’t read carefully, that’s absolutely true. And in fact I do expect more care in reading than is probably called for by general experience, so that’s on me as well. But the reason I say this more often than some people isn’t because I’ve got some particular deficiency, but because I recognize when people have misunderstood each other more readily than most people. I’m not saying I’m some kind of intuitive genius, rather, recognizing failures of clarity is a large part of my training. It’s something I see that others often don’t, just as the electrician the other day could see lots of things just by looking at my walls that I had no clue existed.
As to the couch jumping incident, it’s been five years so I call statute of limitations on my earlier refusals to explain. (I’ve posted about parenting since than anyway, so my original reasons for refusing no longer apply.) It’s been a long time and I don’t remember a lot about it, but the gist of is, while I had my four-year-old in the corner of my vision and was aware that he was lightly bouncing on the furniture, feet not even leaving the surface, facing backwards, while holding the back it, I was also more fully aware of the need to make sure that all these other kids I’d been given charge of at the time stayed in the room with me. Some of them were trying to run out of the room, and in order to keep them where they were supposed to be (and to keep them from getting lost in what was kind of a maze of back-stagey corridors) I was over there calling them back.
Then some dude grabbed my kid and yelled at him.
He should have spoken to my kid politely. If he didn’t know who the parent was, he should have asked the kid who the parent was.
This is not the same kid, anyway, who I’m talking about in the other thread. This thread’s kid was my now-ten-year-old son. (He’s an extremely well-behaved and well-liked kid, btw. I mention this to further allay foolish assumptions about whether my “parenting” as exhibited in the original couch incident somehow indicated my kids are doomed to become horrible people.)
The other thread is about my eight-year-old daughter.
I still maintain that in this thread you all was a bunch of assholes. But it was five years ago.
The Prevert thing is because your tablet thinks you’re talking about Jacques Prevert. The first-letters-of-sentences thing is because your tablet has a demon.
But hey, at least you now recognize that your desire to eat beef results in cows being killed. You got that going for you.
Remember what I said just above about clarity?
I was perfectly clear on this point. I said nothing about whether a desire to eat beef kills anything. I made no such realization–good thing too, because it wouldn’t be true.
I realized something about what eating beef does. Whereas previously I had thought “I didn’t kill this cow, so I do not kill any cow” and left it at that, I now see that by eating (well, actually, buying, usually) the beef, I kill some future cow.
I said something about what eating beef does. You took a way a point about what the desire to eat beef does. Completely different point, and an incorrect one at that. Yet I am accused of failing to communicate.
No, people bring shit to the conversation and smear it over what I said, then call me “unclear.”
Simmer down now!
I’m sure you will point out to me in minute detail, but I fail to appreciate any significant differences between our two statements.
Hmm. Interesting thread which I wouldn’t have seen without Fenris’s obvious ineptitude…thanks, man.
Frylock, I would say that the circumstances described wouldn’t be considered “reasonable” so much as “not acceptable behavior but maybe the best you could do under the circumstances.” If you had said that, as in “I knew the kid shouldn’t be doing it, but due to XYZ circumstances I couldn’t immediately correct him and was going to get to that in a minute,” this thread would have gone far far differently. All the hypotheticals where you imply that there are some circumstances where people are more than thrilled for children to jump on sofas really really did not help your case.
Well, yeah, clearly!
I wasn’t making a case that I behaved reasonably (remember, I explicitly refused to do so) I was rather making a case that a bunch of assholes are making a bunch of assumptions.
Frylock and I are exactly alike! I too am an intuitive genius, even though it’s not like I really am…but okay I am. It is a combination of aptitude, training and experience that makes me the intuitive genius that I am not really.
Also, when I don’t communicate well, it’s my fault, because I have failed to account for how deficient everyone else is.
There weren’t assumptions, you described the situation pretty much exactly the way people were picturing it.
I suspected demons. Anyone know a good exorcist?
You get me.
bolding mine.
Is that when you tard subroutine kicked in?
You might want to fix that.
I mean seriously that is so stupid.
I’ll talk about how I did something that’s looks unreasonable to any normal person. But I won’t explain WHY it WAS reasonable in those circumstances.
WTF does that prove? That things aren’t always as they appear? Well, colored me surprised.