"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no crying
and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work around. We
knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid taking him
out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for
a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not
want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they
were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for
dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.


That's what I recall doing when our kids were little. There are places to
take toddlers and there are places not to take them. Expecting them to be
perfectly behaved at that age is unrealistic and frankly not good for the
kid, IMO. Part of the learning process is misbehaving and learning the
consequences. A kid that never needs to be diciplined by avoiding
situations where they require it is going to have a tough time later in
life, IMO.

Dr. Spock

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:

When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.



My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.

When you were 2?

Eisboch


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no crying
and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work around. We
knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid taking him
out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the pattern.


I see.

Eisboch

You see? You seem to doubt it. But, why do we hear so many screaming babies
in public places? Are they all feeling sick? Are some kids allergic to
supermarkets? Of course not. They just don't want to be there for some
reason. I had a blast with my son at the supermarket. Too bad the only way
to get him there now is to hog-tie him and drag him in.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:

When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.



My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.

When you were 2?

Eisboch


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no crying
and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work around. We
knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid taking him
out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for
a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not
want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they
were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for
dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.


If the kid's sounds are no louder than that of the adults, what is the
issue? You don't want to see babies?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy habit, but I
enjoy the dividends.

Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering innocent lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a hell of a lot more
people than cigars do.
Tom,
As a former smoker I always thought smoking was an enjoyable, filthy,
unhealthy habit. I understood non smokers who did not want to smell or
inhale 2nd hand smoke. Since the mid 80's I only smoked outside and
tried to make sure it was not blowing towards non smokers.

Even if 2nd hand smoke was not proven to unhealthy, the smell alone is
offensive to non cigar smokers, even cigarette smokers.


Even if smoking is deadly, it is a free choice item. I can and do enjoy
it being banned from the workplace and bars and dining establishments here
in California. But this is supposed to be a free country. If you want to
smoke in your house, or car, you should be able to. Ballot measure this
election to put a $2.60 tax per pack of ciggies. F'n do gooders. They
say it will cut smoking, and 80% will go to hospitals for payment of
healthcare costs. It is still some fanatic group enforcing their mores on
another group. Short Wave is a health care basket case from what I
understand, but it is his choice to smoke. I used to race cars, also can
be unhealthy, but it is still an action of free (well expensive) choice.


Here (NY), when the tax jumped in a big way, the two major manufacturers
apparently had enough room in their margins to whack the price. They're
still about five bucks a pack. Predictions were around seven. Never
happened.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no
crying and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work
around. We knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid
taking him out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the
pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for
a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not
want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they
were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for
dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.


That's what I recall doing when our kids were little. There are places to
take toddlers and there are places not to take them. Expecting them to be
perfectly behaved at that age is unrealistic and frankly not good for the
kid, IMO. Part of the learning process is misbehaving and learning the
consequences. A kid that never needs to be diciplined by avoiding
situations where they require it is going to have a tough time later in
life, IMO.

Dr. Spock

That's why I didn't give him a loaded handgun until he was three.

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:
When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.

My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.
When you were 2?

Eisboch

What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at that
age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no crying and
screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work around. We knew
when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid taking him out at
those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for a
later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not want
someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they were
young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for dinner, but
not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.



Bill,
I completely agree with all of your points and they are excellent
guidelines for parents to follow. I think what Eisboch was commenting
on are those people who "expect" an infant to behave as an adult. No
matter what you "expect", an infant can and will get cranky especially
if they are tired or hungry.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...


BTW .... that's a great picture ... over there.

Eisboch

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:

When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.



My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.

When you were 2?

Eisboch


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no
crying and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work
around. We knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid
taking him out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the
pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for
a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not
want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they
were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for
dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.


If the kid's sounds are no louder than that of the adults, what is the
issue? You don't want to see babies?


Babies are nice, but their sounds can be much louder and annoying than
adults. Since my kids were not perfect like yours, they got tired and
cranky.

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:
When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.

My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.
When you were 2?

Eisboch

What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no
crying and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work
around. We knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid
taking him out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the
pattern.

Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant for
a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do not
want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when they
were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to for
dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.

If the kid's sounds are no louder than that of the adults, what is the
issue? You don't want to see babies?


Babies are nice, but their sounds can be much louder and annoying than
adults. Since my kids were not perfect like yours, they got tired and
cranky.



Damn, imagine that. An infant who is not perfect and behaves like an
infant. Must be an indication of bad parents.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:52:22 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Even if smoking is deadly, it is a free choice item. I can and do enjoy it
being banned from the workplace and bars and dining establishments here in
California. But this is supposed to be a free country. If you want to
smoke in your house, or car, you should be able to. Ballot measure this
election to put a $2.60 tax per pack of ciggies. F'n do gooders. They say
it will cut smoking, and 80% will go to hospitals for payment of healthcare
costs. It is still some fanatic group enforcing their mores on another
group. Short Wave is a health care basket case from what I understand, but
it is his choice to smoke. I used to race cars, also can be unhealthy, but
it is still an action of free (well expensive) choice.

While I agree in principle, there are costs, and they should be bore by
those involved. Disregarding lost productivity, it has been estimated
$3.45 per pack, is spent on smoking related medical costs. Personally,
that ballot measure seems pretty fair.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/Media/pressrel/r020412.htm