You, of course, are the first poster other than me to get anything right on this thread. That being said, do you REALLY think this thread would look ANY different if I posted 10 seconds after the post in question was posted? I don’t think so.
OTOH, any post should stand on its own and not require the reading of additional post an hour later for completeness.
Question for culture: Did Z-B not say, in her post, " parent’s place is to teach their offspring how to survive, and be true to themselves, as well as “be honorable” to others, basically law abiding citizens who know themselves well, and accept themselves warts, “beauty marks” and all."
The provisos about teaching a child how to be an honorable, law-abiding citizen, to me, most definitely and clearly implies that limits will be placed on that child’s behavior. A person cannot be honorable and law-abiding without numerous limits being placed. Could you please explain WHY you think Z-B was not in favor of limits when, in the very piece you quoted, she advocates some sensible and sane boundaries for a child’s behavior?
All Z-B said was that she wasn’t going to limit self-expression, within the bounds of honorable and citizen-like behavior. What is your problem with that?
Note that I’m trying to engage you in an honest discussion, not kick your ass in as most others are doing. Not that you don’t totally deserve the drubbing you’re getting, but I do want to understand where the hell you are coming from with this. It makes NO SENSE to me.
Dude! Whoa. In YOUR OP, YOU quoted Z_C as stating:
Yep…you quoted THAT in YOUR post, and you mean to tell me there are no limitations? Let me help you out.
Pulling from Z-C’s quote:
"be honorable" - as in not acting like a total asshat to others (Oh, the irony!)
"basically law abiding citizens" - as in, abide by the law.
The limitations you desire are in the post YOU quoted!
Now, care to tell me again how abiding by the law and being honorable are NOT limitations? Or is everyone in your universe a criminal asshat?
FB
bullshit. Pure, grade-A bullshit.
from what you quoted in your OP:
bolding mine.
Is the smoking crack you accused Z_C of allowing part of being a “law abiding citizen,” as she stated IN THE QUOTE YOU BITCHED ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
No.
No.
No.
No.
(say it with me now)
No.
Again, I suggest you apologize for the accusations, for the hypocrisy, the childish whining, the backpedalling and the jerkiness.
ponders how crowded this particular wavelength is
And I got to be in the middle!!!
FB
Dude, you are fucked. Stop posting NOW.
Of course the thread would look different, the first responses you got referenced Z_C’s follow-on posts. If you posted it immediately, especially in the original thread, I doubt you would have had nearly the negative response you got here. You would have gotten some negativity, for sure, but most of what I’m hearing now seems to be complaints that you didn’t bother to read on.
culture, here is what you posted as the quote you were objecting to:
Are you with me so far?
Okay, read the sentence that starts “A parent’s place”. (I underlined it for you.)
If this sentence was not part of Zabali_Clawbane’s original ( 12:40 1-05-2004) post, why did you include it in your original quote of the comment that made you pit her? (We can’t edit our own posts, so it must have been in there all along.)
Later, in the same thread, Zabali_Clawbane also said:
But, as you have said, that was not the post you were pitting. We all know that.
Here’s where you might get confused, so stay with me here. In the quote you ** did** pit (see above), Zabali_Clawbane specifically mentions teaching children to be "honorable’ and a “law-abiding citizen” (see underlined sentence). For most of us here, that means (doesn’t just imply, but is rather definite) that the child will be taought not to break the law (i.e. smoking crack) or to hurt others or themselves, no matter how much they want to express themselves. In other words, Zabali_Clawbane included very clear limitations in the very paragraph you used to say she was a bad parent for not imposing limits on her children’s self-expression.
Get it now?
Rubystreak,
You seem to be the only one who has actually read my post and ZC’s. The point is, first ZC stated:
This was followed with:
Now, this second part is eminently reasonable. The first is not. They do not belong together. I read this, and I was uncertain of what ZC meant. So I applied my life filters to interpret and try to figure what ZC meant. I know many people who believe their job is to “teach” their children without limiting their self-expression. This translates into telling them what they should do, but refusing to place any limits (i.e. punishment or consequences). The end result is the kids that talk in the movie theater and threaten the adults when the adults complain. This is a major problem and I know many agree as I read about this on the board here all the time.
However, I was still uncertain that I was reading ZC correctly, and that is why I stated in my OP that I realized I might be misunderstanding ZC point. Keep in mind when reading this, it is incredibly dangerous for a male child to wear a dress. Talk to PFLAG about violence toward the transgendered if you do not believe this. It should not be this way, and I hate the conservative red-necks who make it so, but to refuse the reality of the world is a dangerous move.
OK, I give up at this point, and will openly and freely acknowledge:
1) I should have read the entire thread before posting.
2) I am out-numbered and cannot keep up.
However, I believe am right about everything else. ZC’s post was unclear, and she was discussing allowing her child to do something very dangerous, whether you are willing to admit this or not. It should not be dangerous, but it is. Send you child to school in a dress and see what happens.
I will not post here again. Feel free to abuse me on my next thread in which I pit myself for not reading the entire thread before posting.
ah, the time honored “nobody is smart enough to understand my posts” defense. Who had GMT -5 hours 06:48 in the pool??
Pear pimples and hairy fishnuts!
What is it with morons who post fairly incomprehensible comments then excoriate the rest of us for not being intelligent enough to understand their philosophical maunderings? First Milum, now this one. It’s starting to be a trend.
Not to mention bringing up the “danger” of a boy wearing a dress to school–not the original danger culture seem to be concerned with in the first place.
“Can you say public servant?”
“Bozo!”
What a futtock.
Yes, I know it’s actually an innocent word, but it sounds perfect for this cretin. What an amazing collection of ignoramuses this board collects – is it, think ye, a matter/antimatter thing?
Brownie points: I read all the way to the end of the thread before posting. 
Culture, get a clue. When you’re wrong, apologize. Don’t hold out on your last bastion of technicality.
culture, as a parent, I can tell you, that if someone wants to accuse me of being a bad parent, they’d better know what the fuck they’re talking about. And saying “You said ‘xyz’, and, ohbytheway, sorry if I misunderstood you”. Parents take accusations of being bad parents very seriously. You should probably take your head out of your ass and think about what you’re saying before you say it. Posting rashly, and then saying, “sorry if I misunderstood” is not looked upon very kindly around here.
I’m glad you’re backing off from this thread, but hope you’re continuing to read it, because, if you separate out all the bad language and nit-picking, what’s left is some pretty solid advice that could make your time here on the boards happier and more productive.
OK, I tried to review this thread with an open mind (yeah, slow night at La Maison Rubystreak):
Maybe this warrants a whole 'nother thread, but is it actually dangerous to let a boy wear a dress? Not to the grocery store or preschool, but around the house? I know they say “the clothes make the man,” but they’re just clothes, ya know? And as a woman, I can say that skirts definitely do have advantages, but not for little kids; they’re a pain in the ass to run, climb, and roughhouse in. He’d learn on his own that dresses aren’t play clothes, and soon enough he’ll internalize all society’s bullshit prescripts and move on.
Or he become a transvestite or a drag queen, and IMO there’s nothing wrong with that, but it does open him up to lots of mockery, if not outright beatings.
The bottom line (which is kind of what culture was saying, in his fucked up way) is that a boy who wore a dress, with full parental approval, is likely to get his ass kicked. Could a parent, in good conscience, let his or her son wear that dress, knowing the likely consequences? I can see culture’s point in that it might be very bad for the kid’s social life. I can also see Z-C point that society is fucked for caring so much what people wear.
I draw the line at calling Z-B a bad parent. That was not warranted or fair. Maybe she’s a wee bit idealistic and divorced from reality, but well-meaning and surely a BETTER parent than a person who’d say, “Mah son ain’t wearin’ no dress! He’s no goddam fag!”
culture: For your sake, I wish you’d just pointed out the very real hazards of a boy wearing a dress in public and stopped at that. This thread was overkill and it’s not what the Pit is for. A word to the wise.
Culture, I sincerely hope you are reading this thread, because I cherish the vain hope that perhaps I will be the one to make you see that you do still owe Zabali Clawbane an apology. What you said in your OP was this:
I am a translator and interpreter. As such, I feel compelled to point out that what you offered was a conditional apology, which would only be proffered if certain terms were met. You have yet to make an unconditional apology and one is certainly called for.
On this message board, a person is judged by the content of one’s posts, both grammatical and substantive. In this thread, I’m afraid you’ve made rather obvious and unfortunate errors in both the mechanics of the English language and in reading and comprehending what others have posted. You might want to give some thought to damage control. I suggest you begin with a full, unconditional apology, not only to Zabali Clawbane, but to Munch and others.
CJ
(Ducking out, having done too much to incur the wrath of Gaudere)
In this thread you said the following.
Bolding in the quote itself added by me.
I feel that it has been sufficiently pointed out to you in that thread that I did indeed tacitly mention ways in which limitations on the child’s behavior would be applied. It’s obvious to me that you just cannot pick up on such things. My quibble is with your chosen method of vitriol.
You worthless bag of shit, my children, my beautiful little ones are DEAD! They died suddenly and painfully. (This is even mentioned in the quote you put in your OP) No, I do not want to give any more details than that, except to say that the person who caused their deaths was under the influence. Yes, I am still mourning, and have counseling.
FIVE HOURS after I last posted in that thread, you pit me? Not only that, but you didn’t even take the time to comprehend fully what I said in the post YOU QUOTED, and you fling nasty insinuations too, libeling me? I can only think that you thought you’d found someone that you could “justifiably” bully, and crap on. I won’t stand for it, I want an apology, now!
Next time you go to fling such nasty, pustulant, filthy, lying accusations, read the rest of the thread to see if the person has clarified. Better, ask the person IN THAT THREAD to clarify before you pit them. I’d have been happy to “draw you a picture”.
You have no excuse for your behavior, all you can do is apologize.
I want a “proper” one too, which entails
The ball is in your court, make good or not. Either way, you’d best let me be from this point on. After you apologize that is. I can honestly state, even after this, I do not hate you. I don’t care for you one way or the other. My attitude towards you is apathetic. Just leave me alone, or I will take notice of you again.