I’ve never been in a Chili’s that doesn’t provide crayons. I would assume that its the type of restaurant chain that I could take a child to and let them behave like relatively well behaved children - which I think this one is.
But those parents DO sound like jerks.
[quote=“tacoloco, post:200, topic:526368”]
No problem, vBulletin Expert Person. 
No its not a regional thing. Answering rudeness with rudeness is always rude…even at at Red Sox game. Its just that rude people don’t care.
(TA: And sometimes, its like justifiable homicide - maybe Miss Manners would convict you, but a jury of reasonable people wouldn’t).
[quote=“Fuji, post:202, topic:526368”]
There may be something to this regional thing. Coming from LA, the hyper-polite Minnesota nice thing caught me by surprise. “Fuck you,” in Los Angeles is a perfectly acceptable response to rude behavior, as is giving the bird to idiot drivers. In Minnesota, rudeness is best responded to with, “Goodness gracious! Wherever did you learn your manners?” I was in my car with a friend recently, and honked at some ass who thought it would be wise to dash in front of me, causing me to smash the brakes, on an icy road. My friend said, “I think that’s the first time I’ve heard a car horn in ten years.” Even honking a horn here is too rude for people! That’s what it’s there for!
:dubious: Hmm… I don’t know about that. Remember, this is a town where at a downtown rally thousands maniacally chanted “Yankees Suck!” At a Patriots rally, that is.
This is where I lose sympathy for you. You don’t have the right, or the knowledge of that child, to determine how that child should be effectively disciplined by his parents.
You do, I agree, have a right to insist that the child is removed if he or show won’t stop bawling. But to suggest I have some requirement to spank my child for disturbing your meal is ridiculous.
My son, now almost 10, has acted up once in a restaurant to the degree that I had to take him home. But it sure as hell isn’t your business (provided I am starying within the law) how I disciplined him to ensure it was not repeated.
Then we evidently are not reading the same thread.
Did anything I actually, you know, wrote in the post replying to you, contradict that?!
Interesting that you feel the need to trumpet these virtues.
Again, I wonder whose posts you have been reading - evidently not mine, since you apparently are of the opinion that you are arguing with me over these points.
The confusion is entirely on your part. You are seemingly of the opinion that I’ve advocated the position I’ve highlighted, and as a result have heaped on the abuse; which merely rebounds to your discredit, as being totally unwarranted.
Tell you what: read the thread and find a single post in which I’ve taken a stance even remotely similar to the highlighted statement. If so, I’ll gladly consider you right, and say so.
ZPG, when some of us say that a parent should take a misbehaving child outside, I’m pretty confident in saying that we don’t mean take the child outside and prostitute her.
Excellent. I L’d-O-L.
Blasphemy! I still have, from college, a child’s placemat on which a good friend of mine, at that point in Organic Chemistry, had drawn out, in crayon, some crazy chemical reaction she’s just had to memorize.
I don’t think the point was, “You have to spank your kid when they misbehave, or you’re a bad parent.” I think it was, “You have to make it clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, and this is how I’d do it.”
Then why the hell do you keep picking at my posts, if you agree with me?
ETA: I went back and skimmed over your replies to me. What I see is you whining about how parents have to take their kids out, or they’ll never know if they can behave. Nowhere in those posts did you indicate that you thought that parents should actually be responsible if their kids don’t live up to their expectations, and you kept poking at all the people who’d simply requested that misbehaved children be controlled or removed.
See PoorYorick’s response to you, post 39 (and many by others subsequently defending it).
I’ve been agreeing with this the whole thread, though way I’d put it there are various things that the parent ought to be doing in terms of soothing and distracting first; taking outside is one of several techniques.
Point is, I don’t think anyone is really of the opinion that it is okay to ignore a screaming child.
That’s funny, Muffin. I was also thinking that Indian baby-snatchers should look into Denmark. 
When my little brother was crying for sweets in the shop, other people told my mom to just get the damn thing and make the baby to shut the fuck up.
Her reply was always something like “If you want to pay for it, fine with me” or “Mind your own business and stop upsetting my kid”.
Now, 25 years later my mother is the one, who gives out to the mother with the crying baby… go figure … I sometimes like to point that out to her, since it amuses me, but I’m getting nowhere there either.
A couple of months ago I was at a wedding, where a kid was screaming mad in the church for the mum. Some clown next to us said something like “Who the fuck brings a baby like this to a wedding, that bitch should have stayed at home or leave”…well that bitch was the bride.
So, being passive agressive is a plus in your book. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be seated next to either party in that anecdote. One party has a screaming child. The other party is passive agressive and doesn’t use language appropriate for polite company.
Maybe you should be asking yourself this question? I would have thought before heaping on the insults.
Point is, what I was disagreeing with was your championing of the exclusionary principle.
[Emphasis added to emphasize idiocy]
Then you are, alas, a fool. Or perhaps you simply missed all of my posts discussing “reasonable accomodation”.
For an example, see my post 158 (you quoted it so I can only presume you read it and understood it):
Or perhaps you would care to retract?
Sorry, Malthus, you’re right. Most of your previous posts were such poorly thought-out drivel that I started skimming, assuming more of the same. My apologies for failing to noticie that you finally conceded that you actually agree with everyone else here and were apparently just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Post 55, yo. 48 and 51 also work for examples of people not supporting a No Children Anywhere rule. I think most of the responses here have been reasonable.
And yet the argument has gone five pages here in two days, and this is far from the first time we’ve had this discussion. I don’t quite get it.
Then the point was inartfully made, certainly. I have a pretty extreme reaction to someone telling me I have to hit my kid, when they have never met him. And that is, unfortunately, a suggestion you hear from a lot of people. Though, of course, never about my son because he is a perfect little angel.