Wow! My very own (proposed) meme! 
I dunno though… sounds like a 70s dance move. “Do the Wecta Funki”?
Not since I started eating better.
He isn’t kidding.
Yay.
The antecedent of that conditional definitely doesn’t support the consequent.
In any case, in this situation, it was reasonable for me to allow the jumping to occur. Go ahead and assert otherwise again, if you’d like.
Hilarious!
I’d like to hear THAT explanation.
Were you taking the hellion to see the doctor for ants in the pants or sumptin?
Guys, remember what day it is. No chance he’s being serious!
I will, unless you’d care to explain why it was appropriate in that case for your child to jump up and down on a piece of furniture that doesn’t belong to either him or you, in a public space where his behavior was likely bothersome.
Guys. I’m not going to explain anything, because we all know how these conversations go. No one convinced everyone and nobody wins.
My point was that I wondered if I should have let the guy grab my kid and speak sternly and loudly an inch and a half away from his face. Somehow the OP confirmed to me that it’s okay to express frustration at such behavior towards my children–even if there was something wrong with what my kids were doing.
It appears that when it comes to that claim, there is general agreement. We shouldn’t be grabbing other people’s kids because we don’t like what they’re doing. Right. That’s what I thought. So do most of you, it appears.
It just so happens, irrelevantly, that there was nothing wrong with what my kids were doing in the case I mentioned. But that is entirely beside the point.
I am not going to explain or justify that sentence because I’ve seen far too many such threads on the SDMB to do anything so stupid. I’m simply going to make the assertion, and leave it at that. No, this should not convince you–but nothing will convince you, so that is no concern of mine.
Bah
Deleted as post responding to was deleted.
Sheesh. And here I always try to be understanding towards parents with their kids acting up, knowing kids aren’t always easily controlled. But there will always be parents who think their kids rule the world.
I’m going to assume that this is an April Fool’s Day joke and move on.
Didn’t I mention the sign over the couch that said in bright red letters “THIS COUCH IS FOR JUMPING! JUMP JUMP JUMP!”
And also, did I forget the part about how I was helping someone else’s poor kid who was bleeding to death all over the floor?
Oh wait, I guess I didn’t tell you guys, did I, that the waiting room in question is owned by my wife, the furniture belongs to me, and the guy in question had just walked in.
There was the part of the story where I was filling out paperwork over at the counter and didn’t have my eyes directly on my kid for a minute, as he typically just sits in the corner and reads when we go to such offices. Did I not say that?
I mean, I guess I could clarify that while I said “jumping” it was very much a controlled bounce as he was testing with some wonder and amazement the physical properties of the couch in question, and I was allowing this safe, non-damaging activity for a very brief period because I wanted to go ahead and let him feel out the experience, briefly, (ten seconds say) before I explained it’s not typically okay to jump on furniture in a public place.
Or I could clarify that my kid has a certified, diagnosed hormonal disorder that makes him unable to control his behavior nearly as easily as other kids his age, and I was in the corner weeping uncontrollably at the possibility that I may have to give the kid up for adoption or something because he’s just such a hellion, which doesn’t justify my behavior, but maybe at least lets you see me as a more sympathetic character rather than a parent who “just doesn’t care”.
None of the above is true of course.
I still assert that what went on was reasonable. No explanations shall be forthcoming! Do you continue to post at me sirrah?
Forget it, guys. It’s Frylocktown.
Then WHY THE HELL did you make a POINT of telling us it was okay in that circumstance then?
You just want the upside (there was nothing wrong with it, trust me!) without the downside (no, in those circumstances, we still think you and the kid were a tool).
Don’t bring up a point to make youself look good and then declare its off limits. Thats a real pansy move if you ask me.
I’m quite disappointed - I thought the Frylock episode would unleash a shitstorm of fury which I was looking forward to watching from the bleachers, as well as adding my two cents.
For shame - bring up something this potentially inflammatory and then bail on it. If it was an April Fool’s gag it was lame from that perspective too.
It’s a recurring exercise: assert something that any fool would know isn’t true, and then proceed to demonstrate that you’re not just any fool.
I do have to support Frylock a little here. A friend of mine once was in a hospital cafeteria with her 2-year-old, getting something to eat between appointments. The 2-year-old picked something and, after starting to eat, started crying his head off and fussing. She then got him ice cream and he was quiet.
Shameful, right? Someone nearby made a comment to her about teaching her kid that tantrums = getting what you want and also told the boy that he should be ashamed of himself for fussing like that.
What that person did not know is that her son had hand, foot, and mouth disease, which resulted in ulcers all over the roof of his mouth and his throat. He hadn’t eaten in days because everything hurt. Getting him to eat anything was a major accomplishment and ice cream soothed the pain of the sores.
Sometimes you don’t know the full story.
I thought that was why people had kids. That and the tax break.
One little monkey jumping on the bed…
Guys, you’re getting off track. Tabasco sauce was not involved in Frylock’s kid’s case. This is for Tabasco sauce related child endangerment.