manderlyh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Not sleeping well--again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 she took it better than i did...just told me quietly after i picked her up... but i was so angry, i called the mother and told her to please not invite my daughter in the future unless she was invited to the "whole" party as it was one of the rudest things i had ever heard of... and did not want her teaching my daughter that this was an acceptable thing to do... she was not at all apologetic, saw no problem with it...they are british and i don't know if this is acceptable in their culture, but where i come from, this is outrageous...i'm still smokin'... *this coming after another birthday party last week where one girl was literally "disinvited" after the mom decided she had perhaps invited one too many...i would not have allowed my daughter to attend that one either had i known beforehand... wtf??? To be honest being British has nothing to do with it - yet, at the same time, it's becoming more and more common for kids to exclude other kids - and some parents don't see it as a problem. I went to a sleepover years ago, only to have the birthday girl and some of her friends exclude me. That was particularly upsetting as she was supposed to be my best friend. I may have been 11/12, and when we left Primary school for Secondary school I made sure I had bugger all to do with her after that. Wasn't worth my time. I'm 23 now and still some of my friends won't go places if another person's there. We're supposed to be adults - such a shame half of them can't act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Email forwards from people who never email you unless they are sending you a forward (they go straight into my circular file...). And these "25 Things" and related lists on FB; took me 2 weeks to sort of figure out how to do it and I still can't do it without using my notepad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm 23 now and still some of my friends won't go places if another person's there. We're supposed to be adults - such a shame half of them can't act like it. I'd say that was a good thing if you don't think your friends can behave themselves around people who aren't exactly their favorite people in the world. I'd much rather be short a friend than being with said friend who ends up causing problems and drama with a particular set of people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 marinated artichoke hearts getting stuck in your teeth, their great...but the rands ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I simmered and simmered a curry for hours this evening before I ate it--then I realized I wasn't all that hungry when it was ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Sometimes Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 It is bullying and I can't believe the parents are allowing their kids to do it! I hate that shit, too. Thing is, the parents probably still do it. People continue to bully others well into adulthood. Another of my pet peeves is people who just can't seem to master the friggin' four-way stop. WHAT exactly is so difficult about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Email forwards from people who never email you unless they are sending you a forward (they go straight into my circular file...). And these "25 Things" and related lists on FB; took me 2 weeks to sort of figure out how to do it and I still can't do it without using my notepad lmao... I never even bothered looking into one of those things... knew it was one of those things I'd just never understand. Maybe you can explain it to me in installments over the course of the next month or so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 lmao... I never even bothered looking into one of those things... knew it was one of those things I'd just never understand. Maybe you can explain it to me in installments over the course of the next month or so? Basically, people list 25 random things about themselves and then send the list to their friends, who then do the same thing. I also got a list for 20 things that start with the first letter of your first name and a few other lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Basically, people list 25 random things about themselves and then send the list to their friends, who then do the same thing. I also got a list for 20 things that start with the first letter of your first name and a few other lists. I've gotten a few of those too but I haven't sat down to put my own together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Ever wondered why American is going to hell in a hand basket? http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/healt...UnciatkEP7DhUsl Now you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ever wondered why American is going to hell in a hand basket? http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/healt...UnciatkEP7DhUsl Now you know... Yes...there are so many things in that story (or any of the stories I've read/seen about here) that piss me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Merriam, thank you for coming in at the middle of the conversation. Had you read more than just 1 post back, I wouldn't be wasting my time explaining to you that had you done so, you would have deduced on your own time that I wasn't so much aiming for its correct spelling as I was trying to reinstate the way that someone, *cough*, incorrectly spelled it. It was 100% intentional, and that's just got to be a bummer for you. Personally, If I were you I would have posted some possible synonyms so-as to be a tad bit more constructive with the proofread, but thanks all the same. And before you get excited, I am fully aware that my post contains run-on sentences. I just realized how convenient it is that this has happened in the Pet Peeves thread... nearly too good to be true. Dude, you honestly need to chill. I mean, really. Calm down and get over yourself. I just saw you spelled it wrong, so I corrected it. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and I wasn't putting you down because of it. And by the way, this was before we even got in our argument on the other thread, so it wasn't anything personal. I have a pet peeve when people mispell things like "Neanderthal." I'm an anthropologist, so that sort of thing bugs me. Big deal. Like I said, CHILL. You are way too uptight, man, and you are way to into yourself. You're not that smart, that special, or that great. So suck it up and be a man, will you? Stop whining about everything. Jesus Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven2blue Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes...there are so many things in that story (or any of the stories I've read/seen about here) that piss me off. That story pissed me off too. Especially, this quote: "It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?" Maybe Charles Murray's parents should've had second thoughts before they reproduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 That story pissed me off too. Especially, this quote: "It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?" Maybe Charles Murray's parents should've had second thoughts before they reproduced. I'm sorry. Maybe it's because I'm a guy, but I'm with Charles Murray 100%. This stupid idiot of a woman can NOT afford the 6 children she already has. California is already paying for those 6 children, some of which have disabilities. Now she's had 8 more children, many of which will have disabilities, because she had the fetuses put into her uterus because she's "pro-life," and now Californians have to pay even more tax-payer dollars to support this selfish bitch? California needs to seize those children, put them up for adoption, and either make this idiot get a job or get the hell out. When I asked if you wanted to know the reason America was going to hell in a hand-basket, it wasn't because of Charles Murray. It's because of selfish, stupid, retarded idiots like Nadya Suleman. And no, I won't apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manderlyh Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I agree with Charles Murray too. I can see the scenerio played out if people have children--like 1-3 children, maybe even 4, but 4 is REALLY pushing it IMO, that they can afford to support. Something happens and they can't afford to take care of them--they start reciecing benefits from the state/federal government. Fine. As long as the family does eventually get back on their feet. This woman was single with 6 other children--many are already disabled and have special needs. I think it's selfish beyond all belief to have that many kids. I think if you're going to have kids, you need to RAISE THEM RIGHT--and SPEND TIME with them. If you have more than 2 or 3 and YOU'RE MARRIED, even if you can take care of them financially, I honestly believe you're stretching yourself a bit thin in terms of quality time that you can spend with each one. For example, I really think that Brad and Angelina need to calm down--they've got more than enough kids now, and even though they can afford to support them, they are greatly outnumbered and they are going to be spread a bit thin when it comes to quality time given to each of the kids individually. If I had two kids or three kids that had disablitlites, I probably wouldn't keep having children. It would be a signal to me that the combination of genes that were being used to reproduce probably aren't' the best--therefore, I shouldn't bring more kids into the world who are disabled, knowing full and well that the ones I may conceive next will also probably be disabled. If you have three kids, and all of them have special needs that qualify for SSN, that would be your cue that the rest of your children may also have special needs. I'm not saying that people who have special needs children do it on purpose, I'm saying that this lady is ignoring the fact that her children are being born with serious issues and she's continuing to have kids that may also have the same issues. Third--if the bitch's living at home with her parents, an unemployed student, and single, why the hell would one think it's okay to KEEP HAVING KIDS? I don't think I would EVER purposely get pregnant if I were single and unemployed. I am without kids--and I planned it that way so I'd have less of a chance of being poor and being forced to take welfare benefits from the state. I waited until I finished my bachelor's degree, and I'm waiting until I get married before I PLAN to have children. She purposely had children without having a father figure. I also think that's a bit selfish to have 14 kids ON PURPOSE (hell, to have more than one on purpose) without a father in the picture. She gave birth to these children--she didn't adopt them--on purpose. There's more, but I need to stop ranting for now. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Teachers who take the job for the hours. My algebra 2 teacher is like Richard Vernon from the Breakfast Club. I can't stand him. We had this assignment worth 120 points and he lost mine! So what happens? I get the "priviledge" of redoing it. And the teacher won't even own up to it. Everyone in the class says that they saw me turn it in (there are only 8 kids in the class) but he says I never gave it too. I'm a responsible person and I turn in my work on time, but he is not so much. He also makes fun of students for how much money the family has, or how smart they are. ARG! HE MAKES ME SO MAD!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven2blue Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Nathan and Manderlyrn, I agree with you both. This should never have happened, for many reasons. She can't possibly give each child the time and care that it needs with that many children. Then of course there is the money issue. She was clearly thinking of herself and not what kind of life that she was going to give these children. But, now it is too late. The children are in this world. Maybe, adoption? I don't know. This brings me to Charles Murray. We live in a democracy. Once you start taking away people's right to reproduce then you are a slippery slope to total government control. I don't like and agree with a lot things people do, including this mom but I realize that these things happen when you live in the United States. Also, I took exception to Murray's statement because it was irrational. I know rich people who are shitty parents. Money didn't help their children have a better life. Implementing reproduction control would send this country into a frenzy by creating a class war. It's not going to happen of course. I'm not worried about losing reproduction rights if it sounds that way. I was already irritated by a person who told me recently that people have too much freedom in this country. My answer? Go buy an island and implement your own government. I'm happy that I live where I do. It is not perfect but I don't complain because it could be much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I agree that what OctoMom and her doctors did was morally reprehensible and unethical, but at the same time, from a legal standpoint, I don't know how you could legislate to prevent that from happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 maven2blue, believe me when I say I understand where you're coming from, but you have also brought up another pet peeve of mine, and that's the slippery-slope defense. What would you say to me if I told that there is, quite simply, no such thing as the slippery slope? Well, guess what? There's no such thing as the slippery slope. It is a human invention that can and has been stopped. You say by taking away this freedom we are on a slippery slope to total government control. I counter back with, we take away this freedom and... that's it. Believe it or not, we can stop there. Let me tell you what I believe. I am anti-censorship and anti-PC in a major, major way. I believe in the Constitution and I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights (for example, when the 1st amendment says freedom of speech, it doesn't mean only a specific type of speech... it means speech, period)... to a point. Unfortunately for the founding fathers (though fortunately for them), they didn't have to deal with selfish bitches like Nadya Suleman. They didn't have to deal with the black sheep of the media, the Paparazzi. They didn't have to deal with collective shit-hole cults like the Neo-Nazi's, the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, or that polygamous, evil "Christian" Texas group (what was it called, again?). They didn't have websites like Jesus is Savior dot com. They didn't have to deal with door-to-door religious salesmen. They were unaware of these and other human plagues to society. So I believe that while the rights and freedoms we are given are good and should be followed, I also believe that certain people should not have them. I'm sorry, but the Paparazzi should not be allowed to introduce upon the private lives of our celebrities. The Westboro Baptist Church should not be allowed to spew it's hate-ridden, insidious, stupid rhetoric. The Neo-Nazis and the KKK should not be allowed to exist on our soil. Websites like Jesus is Savior should be taken down and not allowed to go back up. And selfish, stupid bitches like Nadya Suleman should not be allowed to reproduce. You say slippery slope, I say there's no such thing. As long as We the People control it, then We the People are the ones in total control. You take away the rights of these people and these organizations, and you simply stop there. You might want to get into an argument about definitions. I don't see why, though, because the definitions aren't exactly hazy. If you can't define the KKK then you need to go back to school. If you can't define crazy cults like the Westboro Baptist Church, then you need to wake the hell up and watch some TV or... it's called "Wikipedia." Shockingly, they are actually more reliable then people give them credit for. And if you can't define Nadya Suleman, then there is no help for you and you should do the world a favor and check yourself into a mental home and get out of society ("you" is general here, maven2blue. I am not referring to you specifically). There is no such thing as the slippery slope. Think about it. It is a mental creation that does not have to exist and can be stopped. Literal, specific definitions can and do exist. Therefore, there is no such thing as the slippery slope. Nathan and Manderlyrn, I agree with you both. This should never have happened, for many reasons. She can't possibly give each child the time and care that it needs with that many children. Then of course there is the money issue. She was clearly thinking of herself and not what kind of life that she was going to give these children. But, now it is too late. The children are in this world. Maybe, adoption? I don't know. This brings me to Charles Murray. We live in a democracy. Once you start taking away people's right to reproduce then you are a slippery slope to total government control. I don't like and agree with a lot things people do, including this mom but I realize that these things happen when you live in the United States. Also, I took exception to Murray's statement because it was irrational. I know rich people who are shitty parents. Money didn't help their children have a better life. Implementing reproduction control would send this country into a frenzy by creating a class war. It's not going to happen of course. I'm not worried about losing reproduction rights if it sounds that way. I was already irritated by a person who told me recently that people have too much freedom in this country. My answer? Go buy an island and implement your own government. I'm happy that I live where I do. It is not perfect but I don't complain because it could be much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 It's hard being a mother. Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get. -Forest Gump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spats Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 When terrible movies make lots of money. My friend knows this girl that actually said when deciding on a film. "I don't want to see one of those Oscar Nominated films." They ended up seeing Paul Blart Mall Cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 When terrible movies make lots of money. My friend knows this girl that actually said when deciding on a film. "I don't want to see one of those Oscar Nominated films." They ended up seeing Paul Blart Mall Cop. Are you sure your pet peeve isn't that your friend went out with a girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Are you sure your pet peeve isn't that your friend went out with a girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 When terrible movies make lots of money. My friend knows this girl that actually said when deciding on a film. "I don't want to see one of those Oscar Nominated films." They ended up seeing Paul Blart Mall Cop. Maybe she just isn't into those types of movies. It wasn't your money that went to the movie so get over it. And on top of that I heard that Paul Blart Mall Cop was actually kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.