new childfree newsgroup where parents can post too

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Some of you may remember a while ago there was some discussion of having a
group in which parents and childfree could talk to each other. Parents are
not welcome at alt.support.childfree so there is no opportunity for
constructive (or civil) dialogue there. It turns out there is a dead group
called alt.childfree.bridgebuilding. Because it has been inactive for a
while most servers don't carry it. If you want to subscribe to this group
you can ask your server to carry it or you can register with
http://News.Individual.NET a free server that has it already. This is the
German server that a lot of the alt.mothers people use.

Those of you who were around during the revival of misc.kids are familiar
with what is needed. You respond to appropriate posts and ignore the
others. My thanks to everyone who is willing to help.

Jayne

[Astromum]

Childfree huh?

/in quivering voice
B....b.....bu....but I wanna PLAY TOOOOOOOO!!!

/runs off to mommy for help

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Mamasamba" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:03:21 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > wrote:
>
> >My thanks to everyone who is willing to help.
>
> I did see that ng pop up on my new groups list and thought that's one
> I can pass up. I haven't changed my mind. I already have dialog with
> my DINK friends.

No problem. If you're not interested, you're not interested.

> Good luck.

Thanks.

Jayne

[Rorqhual]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
> Some of you may remember a while ago there was some discussion of having a
> group in which parents and childfree could talk to each other. Parents
are
> not welcome at alt.support.childfree so there is no opportunity for
> constructive (or civil) dialogue there.

OK, dons 'leap to defence' outfit. asc is, as the name suggests, a SUPPORT
froup for childfree people who feel (particularly in the US, it seems)
ostracised because of their choice. That's why parents are not welcome
there. It's eminently possible to have a constructive or civil dialogue with
many of the asc'ers (myself excluded, of course<g>), but not in that
particular forum, as it is the one place the members can vent without
ruffling feathers.

The idea of a 'mixed' forum sounds good, but I fear it will degenerate into
an 'us vs them' flamefest, as has happened before in ascm.

But I'll give it a go. As you are aware (hopefully) I am not an violently
anti children as some denizens of asc, but I would certainly not see a
sudden influx of childed people as either welcome or constructive within
asc, any more than an influx of paedophiles or child haters would be welcome
here. In the old days, we used to select our NGs to reflect our own
interests/lifestyles, and post to each as appropriate to it's charter. But
then, I'm an old, old man who can still remember when trolls were witty and
intelligent.
:o)
R <--- and the summers were hotter, and we could leave our front door open
all day.... mumble drone......

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"SarahH" > wrote in message
...

[]
> Jayne, Im curious as to why you havent posted a copy of this to a.s.cf?

Because I'm a parent and I want to respect their wish that I do not post
there. We have a few childfree people in our creation team, so I'm
expecting one of them to post something like this there soon. The CF team
members probably want access to the group themselves before they invite
others there and it's taking a while to get it.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Rorqhual" > wrote in message
...
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Some of you may remember a while ago there was some discussion of having
a
> > group in which parents and childfree could talk to each other. Parents
> are
> > not welcome at alt.support.childfree so there is no opportunity for
> > constructive (or civil) dialogue there.
>
> OK, dons 'leap to defence' outfit. asc is, as the name suggests, a SUPPORT
> froup for childfree people who feel (particularly in the US, it seems)
> ostracised because of their choice. That's why parents are not welcome
> there. It's eminently possible to have a constructive or civil dialogue
with
> many of the asc'ers (myself excluded, of course<g>), but not in that
> particular forum, as it is the one place the members can vent without
> ruffling feathers.

I'm sorry you felt you had to leap to defence of asc. My comment was not
meant as a critism. I have no problems with asc being a cf only group. Can
you suggest how I could rephrase it to make this clearer?

> The idea of a 'mixed' forum sounds good, but I fear it will degenerate
into
> an 'us vs them' flamefest, as has happened before in ascm.

If we get a strong core of people who know to ignore flames we might manage.
I've been impressed by how alt.mothers has been able to maintain a fairly
good tone simply by that method. Our creation team expects that we will
eventually need to make a moderated version of the group, but we are going
to give this one a good try first.

> But I'll give it a go. As you are aware (hopefully) I am not an violently
> anti children as some denizens of asc, but I would certainly not see a
> sudden influx of childed people as either welcome or constructive within
> asc, any more than an influx of paedophiles or child haters would be
welcome
> here. In the old days, we used to select our NGs to reflect our own
> interests/lifestyles, and post to each as appropriate to it's charter. But
> then, I'm an old, old man who can still remember when trolls were witty
and
> intelligent.
> :o)

I was hoping that you would come there. I actually sent you an email with a
personal invitation, but it bounced for some reason.

> R <--- and the summers were hotter, and we could leave our front door open
> all day.... mumble drone......

Ah, the good old days. <g>

Jayne

[Banty]

In article >, "Rorqhual" says...
>

>But I'll give it a go. As you are aware (hopefully) I am not an violently
>anti children as some denizens of asc, but I would certainly not see a
>sudden influx of childed people as either welcome or constructive within
>asc, any more than an influx of paedophiles or child haters would be welcome
>here.

These two scenarios are absolutely *not* morally reciprocal. If you participate
in the 'group, you'll get an earfull as to why.

Banty

[toto]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:57:01 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> wrote:

>
>"SarahH" > wrote in message
...
>
>[]
>> Jayne, Im curious as to why you havent posted a copy of this to a.s.cf?
>
>Because I'm a parent and I want to respect their wish that I do not post
>there. We have a few childfree people in our creation team, so I'm
>expecting one of them to post something like this there soon. The CF team
>members probably want access to the group themselves before they invite
>others there and it's taking a while to get it.
>
>Jayne
>
The group is carried on altopia and if you get real traffic, other pay
newsservers will carry it.

I see that you posted an FAQ there. Frankly, I suggest that you try
to find the original charter and that you don't post an FAQ until you
have some people who want to be regular members.

You can't have a creation team for a group that already exists, btw.
That's silly, the group is already created.

Although google is not carrying the group, you can xpost into other
groups and the posts *will* be on google, so if you keep the
xposting on topic to the groups you use, eventually you may gain
some people who will request the group on their ISPs. With traffic,
some newsservers pick it up automatically as well. Apparently
there are newsservers that create the group when you xpost as
was pointed out on news.groups in the last discussion about mk-fl.
If you missed it, mk-fl is available though only on one newsserver
as a test group for the moderation team. Anyone is welcome
to post there by subscribing to news.gweep.ca and looking for the
group, but you cannot post from gweep to any unmoderated groups
and it does not carry many groups, so this cannot replace your
regular newsserver.

You may want to ask in alt.config about how to get google to carry
the group, or email google-support and see if they are willing to
archive it.

Good luck.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"toto" > wrote in message
...

[]
> The group is carried on altopia and if you get real traffic, other pay
> newsservers will carry it.

Thanks for that info. I'm trying to keep track of which servers are
carrying it. I can add altopia to the list.

> I see that you posted an FAQ there. Frankly, I suggest that you try
> to find the original charter and that you don't post an FAQ until you
> have some people who want to be regular members.

There are people who want to be members, they haven't managed to get access
yet. We have a mailing list where we have been talking about starting up a
group like this and I've run that FAQ by them.

I wish I could find the original charter, but a google search didn't help
and I can't think of any other way to look. Do you have any ideas, Dorothy?
Unfortunately, as it is, we just have to guess from its name.

> You can't have a creation team for a group that already exists, btw.
> That's silly, the group is already created.

This creation team has been around for a few months talking about creating a
new group. When we discovered there was an inactive group with a name that
fit our purpose we decided to revive it instead. I've just gotten into the
habit of referring to us as a creation team. Strictly speaking, I suppose
you are right. Now we are a revival team, but that just sounds weird. <g>

> Although google is not carrying the group, you can xpost into other
> groups and the posts *will* be on google, so if you keep the
> xposting on topic to the groups you use, eventually you may gain
> some people who will request the group on their ISPs.

I've thought about doing something like that, but I'm not sure what group to
cross-post to where it won't annoy the regular participants. Misc.kids has
been pretty quiet lately. How do misc.kids people feel about us
cross-posting some threads to a.c.b and m.k while we are getting started?
They aren't supposed to be flamey but I don't know what will end up
happening.

> With traffic,
> some newsservers pick it up automatically as well. Apparently
> there are newsservers that create the group when you xpost as
> was pointed out on news.groups in the last discussion about mk-fl.
> If you missed it, mk-fl is available though only on one newsserver
> as a test group for the moderation team. Anyone is welcome
> to post there by subscribing to news.gweep.ca and looking for the
> group, but you cannot post from gweep to any unmoderated groups
> and it does not carry many groups, so this cannot replace your
> regular newsserver.

Yes, I've been following this in news.groups. I probably would have subbed
myself, but I've been too busy with this project.

> You may want to ask in alt.config about how to get google to carry
> the group, or email google-support and see if they are willing to
> archive it.

I'm waiting until we build up some traffic before asking google to archive
it. From what I've read in alt.config, that will improve our chances that
they will do it.

> Good luck.

Thanks for the good wishes and good advice.

Jayne

[toto]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:19:52 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> wrote:

>There are people who want to be members, they haven't managed to get access
>yet. We have a mailing list where we have been talking about starting up a
>group like this and I've run that FAQ by them.

Have them request the group from their own ISP newsservers and from
whatever other servers they use. It generally takes about two weeks
or so for a newsserver to add a group, but if a customer requests it
most are very good about it. If you have anyone who is on aol,
earthlink or other major servers, explain that it is a low traffic
group, but that there are people who wish to post there and revive
it and you should be able to get the group going. Then make sure
that your team posts to it from the servers they requested it on.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:19:52 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > wrote:
>
> >There are people who want to be members, they haven't managed to get
access
> >yet. We have a mailing list where we have been talking about starting up
a
> >group like this and I've run that FAQ by them.
>
> Have them request the group from their own ISP newsservers and from
> whatever other servers they use. It generally takes about two weeks
> or so for a newsserver to add a group, but if a customer requests it
> most are very good about it.

The University of Berlin one that I use did it in just one day. But the
other list memebers' servers seem to be taking longer. I suppose they will
be another week or so like you say.

> If you have anyone who is on aol,
> earthlink or other major servers, explain that it is a low traffic
> group, but that there are people who wish to post there and revive
> it and you should be able to get the group going. Then make sure
> that your team posts to it from the servers they requested it on.

Thanks Dorothy. I'll mention this on our mailing list.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...
> In misc.kids Jayne Kulikauskas > wrote:
> > I've thought about doing something like that, but I'm not sure what
group to
> > cross-post to where it won't annoy the regular participants. Misc.kids
has
> > been pretty quiet lately. How do misc.kids people feel about us
> > cross-posting some threads to a.c.b and m.k while we are getting
started?
> > They aren't supposed to be flamey but I don't know what will end up
> > happening.
>
> I would be completely opposed to it. I'm not even able to grasp what
> bridges you are intending to build between people who want kids and people
> who don't. Do you think we live in different countries?

We often have very different pespectives. Sometimes it is useful to talk to
people who are different from oneself and understand how other people see
things.

> You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge to go
> around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to ASC-F are
> just, um, special. I believe the point of the group is to go someplace
> where they can rant among friends.

My impression is that only a minority on ascf spout hatred. I think it is a
shame that they all have gotten that reputation. Most child-free people are
as reasonable as anybody else.

> There is a thread going in alt.support.marriage right now where a man
> married a woman who didn't want kids - and he doesn't want kids - and now
> she wants them. It isn't about "bridge-building", it's about a very real
> and specific issue in their marriage. I can't even see how THAT post
> would work in the group you're proposing. They work it out or they
> don't. There isn't a compromise position on this one.

For me bridge building is about understanding, not about compromising. Most
of the advice given to that couple was that they needed to talk to each
other and not just assume that they knew what the other thought. Letting go
of assumptions and talking to people is what building bridges is all about.

Jayne

[Chotii]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message

> We often have very different pespectives. Sometimes it is useful to talk
to
> people who are different from oneself and understand how other people see
> things.
>
> > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge to go
> > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to ASC-F
are
> > just, um, special. I believe the point of the group is to go someplace
> > where they can rant among friends.

My neighbors (a married couple) are a police officer and a fireman. They
have chosen not to have children. But they don't hate them. They certainly
don't call them 'crotchfruit' or 'sprogs' or anything else that entirely
ignores the point that children are little people. Difficult sometimes, yes.
Challenging. Not for everybody. But people with dignity all the same. Nor
do they call me a breeder, or anything else offensive. They're nice
neighbors who have made different life choices, which I respect perfectly
well.

I understand why someone, having chosen not to have children, might become
frustrated with family and friends encouraging them to do so regardless.
But I don't understand the nastiness. I honestly don't know what this 'new
childfree' group can hope to accomplish. It *will* be invaded by the
nasties, the namecalling *will* commence, the crossposting *will* follow,
and for the love of god and peace on earth, please don't go there. If this
'bridgebuilding' newsgroup died before, there's a reason.

--angela

[Wendy Marsden]

In misc.kids Jayne Kulikauskas > wrote:

> We often have very different pespectives. Sometimes it is useful to talk to
> people who are different from oneself and understand how other people see
> things.

Okay, that's a nice thing. But this really only comes in handy when
trying to solve a problem, right? There isn't a problem to solve
here. They don't want kids, we do. No problem.

> For me bridge building is about understanding, not about compromising. Most
> of the advice given to that couple was that they needed to talk to each
> other and not just assume that they knew what the other thought. Letting go
> of assumptions and talking to people is what building bridges is all about.

But these people were trying to solve a very real problem: to have
children in this marriage or not. Your quest to "understand them" is
tinged with some undercurrents like, "I'm trying hard to make it okay with
me" or "if only I could figure them out I'd know how to fix them." I am
perfectly aware that this might not be your intention, but the quest to
study someone who is different than you DOES have some agenda beyond just
glorying in the diversity of this world, don't you think?

They are different. That's fine. I don't need to bridge that
difference. I'm pretty sure the people who DO ned to bridge that
difference will be like the married couple above: spcific people with a
specific issue. All the rest of the posters will just be defending their
point of view in one huge flamewar. Count me out.

By the way, my sister is adamantly child-free. So is one of my best
friends. We have never yet had to bridge the gulf between us on
this issue. They both are active in hobbies we are not engaged in. We
don't have to bridge that gulf, either.

Can you tell me an example of when you DO have to bridge the gulf between
child-free and parents?

Wendy

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...

[]
> Can you tell me an example of when you DO have to bridge the gulf between
> child-free and parents?

There doesn't have to be a practical application for it. I like
understanding people who are different from me simply for the sake of
understanding them. I suppose it is connected to what I believe about the
importance of caring about people. Trying to understand people helps me to
care about them and treat them better.

Jayne

[P. Tierney]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
> >
> > I would be completely opposed to it. I'm not even able to grasp what
> > bridges you are intending to build between people who want kids and
people
> > who don't. Do you think we live in different countries?
>
> We often have very different pespectives. Sometimes it is useful to talk
to
> people who are different from oneself and understand how other people see
> things.

Talk about what? What exactly is the content of the newsgroup that
you are talking about? Perhaps I just don't understand why those who
are "childfree" have common issues or have any need to get together at
all (except perhaps for support among adults who want kids, but are unable),
much less wanting to "build bridges" with those who have kids.

So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
overlap? Hypothetically, of course.

> > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge to go
> > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to ASC-F
are
> > just, um, special. I believe the point of the group is to go someplace
> > where they can rant among friends.
>
> My impression is that only a minority on ascf spout hatred. I think it is
a
> shame that they all have gotten that reputation. Most child-free people
are
> as reasonable as anybody else.

True. But those who have posted on this newsgroup are about
as disgusting as they come. That has been my impression, anyway.



P. Tierney

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message
news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...

[]
> So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> overlap? Hypothetically, of course.

This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:

Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?

A. These include:
Information about CF events, articles and websites.
How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
policies.
Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
differing perspectives.
Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.

[]
> True. But those who have posted on this newsgroup are about
> as disgusting as they come. That has been my impression, anyway.

I have seen some pretty awful stuff done by the extreme CF minority. One of
my first reactions was to prove to myself that they were a minority and that
there are lots of pleasant CF people out there. I had to hunt around on
mailing lists and websites and found them. I'm hoping that a newsgroup like
a.c.b will make them easier to find.

Jayne

[P. Tierney]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
> news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...
>
> []
> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>
> This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:
>
> Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?
>
> A. These include:
> Information about CF events, articles and websites.
> How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
> Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
> children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
> policies.
> Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
> Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
> behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
> generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
> differing perspectives.
> Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.

I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
who choose to have kids. Live and learn.

> > True. But those who have posted on this newsgroup are about
> > as disgusting as they come. That has been my impression, anyway.
>
> I have seen some pretty awful stuff done by the extreme CF minority. One
of
> my first reactions was to prove to myself that they were a minority and
that
> there are lots of pleasant CF people out there.

I'm sure that is the case, but crossposting would inflame the worst
of them, I would think. And the minority could easily drawf the posts
of the majority. This is the Internet, after all. Imagine a newsgroup of
religious teetotlers crossposting their messages with a newsgroup focused
on beer drinking. Nothing but trouble. But maybe kind of funny. ;-)

Could they, in theory, find issues to discuss, and do so reasonably?
Yes, in theory. But not in reality, imo.

> I had to hunt around on
> mailing lists and websites and found them. I'm hoping that a newsgroup
like
> a.c.b will make them easier to find.

Sounds good. Good luck to ya.


P.
Tierney

[-L.]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "toto" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> []
> > The group is carried on altopia and if you get real traffic, other pay
> > newsservers will carry it.
>
> Thanks for that info. I'm trying to keep track of which servers are
> carrying it. I can add altopia to the list.
>
> > I see that you posted an FAQ there. Frankly, I suggest that you try
> > to find the original charter and that you don't post an FAQ until you
> > have some people who want to be regular members.
>
> There are people who want to be members, they haven't managed to get access
> yet. We have a mailing list where we have been talking about starting up a
> group like this and I've run that FAQ by them.
>
> I wish I could find the original charter, but a google search didn't help
> and I can't think of any other way to look. Do you have any ideas, Dorothy?
> Unfortunately, as it is, we just have to guess from its name.
>
> > You can't have a creation team for a group that already exists, btw.
> > That's silly, the group is already created.
>
> This creation team has been around for a few months talking about creating a
> new group. When we discovered there was an inactive group with a name that
> fit our purpose we decided to revive it instead. I've just gotten into the
> habit of referring to us as a creation team. Strictly speaking, I suppose
> you are right. Now we are a revival team, but that just sounds weird. <g>
>
> > Although google is not carrying the group, you can xpost into other
> > groups and the posts *will* be on google, so if you keep the
> > xposting on topic to the groups you use, eventually you may gain
> > some people who will request the group on their ISPs.
>
> I've thought about doing something like that, but I'm not sure what group to
> cross-post to where it won't annoy the regular participants. Misc.kids has
> been pretty quiet lately. How do misc.kids people feel about us
> cross-posting some threads to a.c.b and m.k while we are getting started?

X-posting to soc.misc might be better received. That ng doesn't get a
lot of traffic.

-L.

[Donna Metler]

"Silvasurfa" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>...
> > Some of you may remember a while ago there was some discussion of having
a
> > group in which parents and childfree could talk to each other. Parents
are
> > not welcome at alt.support.childfree so there is no opportunity for
> > constructive (or civil) dialogue there. It turns out there is a dead
group
> > called alt.childfree.bridgebuilding. Because it has been inactive for a
> > while most servers don't carry it. If you want to subscribe to this
group
> > you can ask your server to carry it or you can register with
> > http://News.Individual.NET a free server that has it already. This is
the
> > German server that a lot of the alt.mothers people use.
> >
> > Those of you who were around during the revival of misc.kids are
familiar
> > with what is needed. You respond to appropriate posts and ignore the
> > others. My thanks to everyone who is willing to help.
> >
> > Jayne
>
>
> Ah. Oooookaaaay.
>
> If I recall, at the time you last floated this idea of a NG for CF and
> parents to get together and talk, my take on the matter was that I
> don't particularly wish to spend my precious free time explaining
> parenting to those who will never do it themselves, or indeed, getting
> parenting advice from those who know jack **** about the activity, but
> I would mildly appreciate a forum to sound off in when the target of
> the hostility that sometimes accompanies my once every 28 days
> hormonal disturbance just happens to be an ascfer. Imagine the opening
> fight sequence from Gangs of New York. Yeah, like that.
>
> Should I come over sometime when I feel the mood and raise hell, or
> would you prefer that I didn't? Do tell.

In addition, for those of us who want children and don't have them, this
seems even more ludicrous. Having previously had a CF and happy about it
person tell me you don't need children to be fulfilled and happy, and I've
just been brainwashed by the whole "mother persona" in the media doesn't
help much. At least people who have children understand why I want them!

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Silvasurfa" > wrote in message
m...

[]
> Should I come over sometime when I feel the mood and raise hell, or
> would you prefer that I didn't? Do tell.

I suppose if you were to raise hell in a bridgebuilding sort of way ... <g>

No, it wouldn't work. But if you want a "gangs of New York" kind of group,
there were a couple of other dead groups in alt. There is alt.childfree and
alt.childfree.discussion. You could do the same thing that I've done with
a.c.b - request in on your server and get some other people to do it to.
Make a few inflammatory posts and I'm sure that somebody will come to fight
with you. <g>

The great thing about looking for trouble is that one has such a good chance
of success.

Jayne

[user]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:45:21 GMT, P. Tierney > wrote:
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
>> news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...
>>
>> []
>> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
>> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>>
>> This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:
>>
>> Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?
>>
>> A. These include:
>> Information about CF events, articles and websites.
>> How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
>> Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
>> children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
>> policies.
>> Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
>> Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
>> behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
>> generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
>> differing perspectives.
>> Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.
>
> I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
> unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
> who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
>

Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
a trend. ;-)


>> > True. But those who have posted on this newsgroup are about
>> > as disgusting as they come. That has been my impression, anyway.
>>
>> I have seen some pretty awful stuff done by the extreme CF minority. One
> of
>> my first reactions was to prove to myself that they were a minority and
> that
>> there are lots of pleasant CF people out there.
>
> I'm sure that is the case, but crossposting would inflame the worst
> of them, I would think. And the minority could easily drawf the posts
> of the majority. This is the Internet, after all. Imagine a newsgroup of
> religious teetotlers crossposting their messages with a newsgroup focused
> on beer drinking. Nothing but trouble. But maybe kind of funny. ;-)
>

It absolutely would have that effect. Every now and then I'll lurk
around in ascf, and it's not uncommon for one of the posters there
to point to a "breeder" site, usenet posting, etc, and incite others to
join in and raise havoc. And then come back and gloat about how
clever they think they are. I can't imagine how this situation
would be any different.

> Could they, in theory, find issues to discuss, and do so reasonably?
> Yes, in theory. But not in reality, imo.
>

I suspect that the biggest problem is that, when you read ascf, you find
that these are generally not people who want support in their choice about a
particular lifestyle. They want a forum where they can spew vitriol and
venom about children and parents. It's amazing - some of the ostensibly
hard-line regulars talk about children far, far more than I do. Their
obsession with them borders on the ridiculous. In the case of the
extremists, they're only likely to try to disrupt things. For the childfree
who are merely disinterested in children, I can't imagine why they
would be participating. It's like when a friend of mine has a hobby
that they enjoy, but I don't. I'm happy to listen to them talk
about it, because they get pleasure from it, but I'm not about to
start participating in forums and focus groups to discuss it.

- Rich

[elizabeth]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "SarahH" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> []
> > Jayne, Im curious as to why you havent posted a copy of this to a.s.cf?
>
> Because I'm a parent and I want to respect their wish that I do not post
> there. We have a few childfree people in our creation team,

No, you don't. You may have BREEDER WANNA BE or two, but NO CFers.
You want our approval for your MISTAKE.

**** off, Kuntikakas. We don't need your approval to improve the
world you breeders are bent on destroying with your fecundity.

so I'm
> expecting one of them to post something like this there soon. The CF team
> members probably want access to the group themselves before they invite
> others there and it's taking a while to get it.

There are no CF teamers, you lying sack of bloody diarrhea.

The diaper fumes must be getting to you.

[elizabeth]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message >...
snip
> In addition, for those of us who want children and don't have them,

Then you are child LESS, not child FREE.
There are thousands of children who need homes, so you can adopt or
foster.

this
> seems even more ludicrous. Having previously had a CF and happy about it
> person tell me you don't need children to be fulfilled and happy, and I've
> just been brainwashed by the whole "mother persona" in the media doesn't
> help much. At least people who have children understand why I want them!

Yes, MISERY LOVES COMPANY.
So why not spend several grand on fert tx, spew a freaklitter of
'tards and then whine how THE VILLAGE has to pay for YOUR choice?

[user]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:45:02 -0500, Mamasamba > wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2003 07:39:26 -0700, (elizabeth) wrote:
>
> Lovely.

To truly appreciate Elizabeth, you have to remember that even the
most rabid of the CF's on asc think she's a total nutcase.

Ask her about men, sometime. ;-)

Heck, ask her about women.

On second thought, just update your killfile.

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
>
> The great thing about looking for trouble is that one has such a good chance
> of success.

Yes. Take this thread, for instance. Trolls coming out of the
woodwork already. :/

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

[Banty]

In article >, user says...
>
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:45:21 GMT, P. Tierney > wrote:
>> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
>>> news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...
>>>
>>> []
>>> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
>>> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>>>
>>> This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:
>>>
>>> Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?
>>>
>>> A. These include:
>>> Information about CF events, articles and websites.
>>> How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
>>> Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
>>> children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
>>> policies.
>>> Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
>>> Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
>>> behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
>>> generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
>>> differing perspectives.
>>> Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.
>>
>> I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
>> unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
>> who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
>>
>
> Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
>a trend. ;-)

See - that's one of the things about this. We can have home-owners vs.
apartment dwellers "reachout" newsgroups, city-living vs. country-living
"reachout" newsgroups, etc., etc., all with issues that some hot-headed subset
may wnat to point to in order to elevate themselves into a quasi-persecuted
minority group status (mortgage tax deduction, water rights, que es mas macho
between city and country, yadda yadda).

Jayne's run into some radical hotheads on USENET (imagine that - USENET
attracting hotheads), and doesn't understand the pathology. "Why can't we all
be friends?" "I'd like to teach the woorld to siiing, in puurrrfect
harrrmonneeee..."

What we see here is a pretty good indication of what this "reachout" NG would
be. It's not like a cultural reachout.

AS many of us have experienced IRL, folks who decide not to have kids, just like
folks to decide not to buy a house, or decide not to move to the 'burbs, or
whatever, make their lives, resist the pressures, and don't crow about it.

If Jayne wants to reach out to "childfrees", it would be very effective simply
to expand her own life a bit such that she meets folks who are doing things that
don't necessarily include kids. Then she'll meet lots of happy, balanced folks
who have decided on a path other than her own.

All this "reachout" group will do is attract the radical element who want their
desired quasi-persecuted minority status reflected back to them, and already in
this thread we have a pretty good idea what that's like.

Banty

[P. Tierney]

"-L." > wrote in message
m...
> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
news:<LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54>...
> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
> >
> > > > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge to
go
> > > > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to
ASC-F
> > are
> > > > just, um, special.
>
> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly brush.
> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.

And thank you for incorrectly attributing a quote to me.



P. Tierney

[P. Tierney]

"user" > wrote:
> >
> > I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
> > unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
> > who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
>
> Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
> a trend. ;-)

Hmm. Several people like such crossposting (trend!), and several
people don't (another trend!). Perhaps two newsgroups should be
started: alt.soc.crossposting -- a support group for those who like
to crosspost and feel the need to converse about crossposting with
other crossposters, and; alt.soc.crosspostingfree -- for those who
feel are put off by crossposters and wish to discuss with other
CPFers how to live in society free of crossposting.

But then, should the messages to the two groups be crossposted
to each other so that they can help foster an understanding as to
how CPers and CPFers can get along in the world together? That
indeed is the $1.32 question.



P.
Tierney

[Banty]

In article >, P. Tierney says...
>
>
>"-L." > wrote in message
m...
>> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
>news:<LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54>...
>> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> >
>> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
>> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>> >
>> > > > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge to
>go
>> > > > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to
>ASC-F
>> > are
>> > > > just, um, special.
>>
>> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly brush.
>> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.
>
> And thank you for incorrectly attributing a quote to me.

Uh, yeah. And thanks (to "L.") for misinterpreting the statement, also. Unless
it's "broad and ugly" to present most folks of a category as *not* going around
speaking hatred...

Banty

[user]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:45:44 GMT, P. Tierney > wrote:
>
> "user" > wrote:
>> >
>> > I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
>> > unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
>> > who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
>>
>> Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
>> a trend. ;-)
>
> Hmm. Several people like such crossposting (trend!), and several
> people don't (another trend!). Perhaps two newsgroups should be
> started: alt.soc.crossposting -- a support group for those who like
> to crosspost and feel the need to converse about crossposting with
> other crossposters, and; alt.soc.crosspostingfree -- for those who
> feel are put off by crossposters and wish to discuss with other
> CPFers how to live in society free of crossposting.
>
> But then, should the messages to the two groups be crossposted
> to each other so that they can help foster an understanding as to
> how CPers and CPFers can get along in the world together? That
> indeed is the $1.32 question.

Well, the obvious solution is to multi-post everything.

Of course, then we'll have news adminstrators complaining
about the extra disk space being used....so we'll need
soc.acceptance.multiposting, as well.

- Rich

[Banty]

In article >, user says...
>
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:45:44 GMT, P. Tierney > wrote:
>>
>> "user" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
>>> > unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
>>> > who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
>>>
>>> Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
>>> a trend. ;-)
>>
>> Hmm. Several people like such crossposting (trend!), and several
>> people don't (another trend!). Perhaps two newsgroups should be
>> started: alt.soc.crossposting -- a support group for those who like
>> to crosspost and feel the need to converse about crossposting with
>> other crossposters, and; alt.soc.crosspostingfree -- for those who
>> feel are put off by crossposters and wish to discuss with other
>> CPFers how to live in society free of crossposting.
>>
>> But then, should the messages to the two groups be crossposted
>> to each other so that they can help foster an understanding as to
>> how CPers and CPFers can get along in the world together? That
>> indeed is the $1.32 question.
>
> Well, the obvious solution is to multi-post everything.
>
> Of course, then we'll have news adminstrators complaining
>about the extra disk space being used....so we'll need
>soc.acceptance.multiposting, as well.

But then there would be flamewars with soc.recovery.multiposting...

Banty

[Donna Metler]

"elizabeth" > wrote in message
om...
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
>...
> snip
> > In addition, for those of us who want children and don't have them,
>
> Then you are child LESS, not child FREE.
> There are thousands of children who need homes, so you can adopt or
> foster.
>
> this
> > seems even more ludicrous. Having previously had a CF and happy about it
> > person tell me you don't need children to be fulfilled and happy, and
I've
> > just been brainwashed by the whole "mother persona" in the media doesn't
> > help much. At least people who have children understand why I want them!
>
> Yes, MISERY LOVES COMPANY.
> So why not spend several grand on fert tx, spew a freaklitter of
> 'tards and then whine how THE VILLAGE has to pay for YOUR choice?

Prime example of WHY I don't like being around childfree by choice people.

One hint-not all people who are childless are infertile. Fertility doesn't
always mean living, healthy babies.

[Donna Metler]

"BrAtTy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:37:43 +1000, seyshell
> > wrote:
>
> >On 6 Aug 2003 03:03:54 -0700, (-L.) wrote:
> >
> >>If you are speaking of ASC - if you are childed you don't have any
> >>business posting there, per the FAQ, and righfully so, since it is a
> >>*support* group.
> >>
> >>-L.
> >
> >hear hear!!!
> >Michelle
>
> Really, when you think about it, it's as inappropriate as someone with
> children posting to a primary infertility newsgroup! and that is "NOT
> ON"!!!
>
> Geez... what next... people who don't have alcohol problems posting to
> alcoholics anon support groups to tell them alcohol isn't 'that'
> bad...
And, in that case, ASC'ers posting to misc.kids is equally inappropriate.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sue
> Mum to Tyler - April 2001
> and a wee Angel - July 2003

[BrAtTy]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:21:40 -0500, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>
>"BrAtTy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:37:43 +1000, seyshell

>>
>> Really, when you think about it, it's as inappropriate as someone with
>> children posting to a primary infertility newsgroup! and that is "NOT
>> ON"!!!
>>
>> Geez... what next... people who don't have alcohol problems posting to
>> alcoholics anon support groups to tell them alcohol isn't 'that'
>> bad...
>And, in that case, ASC'ers posting to misc.kids is equally inappropriate.

hmm in 'some ways' but ASC is 'Support' as in a support group...
misc.kids isn't a support group, or labelled as one.

it is inappropriate in some ways, however at AM we have a CF'er who
posts with us and is a lovely valued member to the group by the person
he is and how he interacts. He doesn't hide his choices, but neither
does he foist them upon us as some would do.


--

Sue
Mum to Tyler - April 2001
and a wee Angel - July 2003

[-L.]

Michelle J. Haines > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > The great thing about looking for trouble is that one has such a good chance
> > of success.
>
> Yes. Take this thread, for instance. Trolls coming out of the
> woodwork already. :/
>
> Michelle
> Flutist

Well, some people don't understand the concept of constructive
dialogue. This is Usenet.

-L.

[-L.]

Banty > wrote in message >...
> In article >, user says...
> >
> >On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:45:21 GMT, P. Tierney > wrote:
> >> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
> >>> news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...
> >>>
> >>> []
> >>> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> >>> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
> >>>
> >>> This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:
> >>>
> >>> Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?
> >>>
> >>> A. These include:
> >>> Information about CF events, articles and websites.
> >>> How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
> >>> Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
> >>> children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
> >>> policies.
> >>> Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
> >>> Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
> >>> behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
> >>> generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
> >>> differing perspectives.
> >>> Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.
> >>
> >> I didn't know that being CF was a "movement", as opposed to
> >> unrelated individuals making unrelated choices, much like those
> >> who choose to have kids. Live and learn.
> >>
> >
> > Some people think that three people doing something constitutes
> >a trend. ;-)
>
> See - that's one of the things about this. We can have home-owners vs.
> apartment dwellers "reachout" newsgroups, city-living vs. country-living
> "reachout" newsgroups, etc., etc., all with issues that some hot-headed subset
> may wnat to point to in order to elevate themselves into a quasi-persecuted
> minority group status (mortgage tax deduction, water rights, que es mas macho
> between city and country, yadda yadda).
>
> Jayne's run into some radical hotheads on USENET (imagine that - USENET
> attracting hotheads), and doesn't understand the pathology. "Why can't we all
> be friends?" "I'd like to teach the woorld to siiing, in puurrrfect
> harrrmonneeee..."
>
> What we see here is a pretty good indication of what this "reachout" NG would
> be. It's not like a cultural reachout.


That's exactly what it is. I'm sorry you fail to see the parallel.


>
> AS many of us have experienced IRL, folks who decide not to have kids, just >like
> folks to decide not to buy a house, or decide not to move to the 'burbs, or
> whatever, make their lives, resist the pressures, and don't crow about it.
>
> If Jayne wants to reach out to "childfrees", it would be very effective simply
> to expand her own life a bit such that she meets folks who are doing things >that
> don't necessarily include kids. Then she'll meet lots of happy, balanced >folks
> who have decided on a path other than her own.
>
> All this "reachout" group will do is attract the radical element who want their
> desired quasi-persecuted minority status reflected back to them, and already >in
> this thread we have a pretty good idea what that's like.
>
> Banty

Nobody is forcing you to participate.

-L.

[-L.]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "-L." > wrote in message
> m...
>
> []
> > X-posting to soc.misc might be better received. That ng doesn't get a
> > lot of traffic.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. It sounds perfect.
>
> Jayne

It would be great for people like me who at the moment post through
Google, and don't have access otherwise. :)

-L.

[-L.]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> []
> > In addition, for those of us who want children and don't have them, this
> > seems even more ludicrous. Having previously had a CF and happy about it
> > person tell me you don't need children to be fulfilled and happy, and
> I've
> > just been brainwashed by the whole "mother persona" in the media doesn't
> > help much. At least people who have children understand why I want them!
>
> It is pretty annoying to have your experience invalidated like that.

Well, I'm a primary infertile and have had my feelings invalidated by
both groups, so the CFers don't have the market on that rudeness! ;)

>I'm
> hoping that alt.childfree.bridgebuilding will attract some childless - not
> by choice - people who can present that perspective. There are going to be
> some CFs who are willing to listen and understand and they would benefit
> from hearing it. So would the parents for that matter.

Yes, I have found that the basic level of understanding regarding just
the *techincal* aspect of infertility is grossly lacking....not to
mention the emotional aspects.

>Of course, there are
> going to be people (not just CF ones) who dismiss the experience of others
> and only see their own narrow viewpoint.

Of course, but I would hope that those truly interested in dialogue
would ignore the lunatic fringe and concentrate on the areas where
true discussion could occur. Killfiles are a must.

Personally, I think it is a great idea, and you are to be commended
for continuing to try, despite the pooh-poohing from both sides. If
you X-post to soc.misc, I'd participate.

-L.

[Banty]

In article >, Nan says...
>
>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:05:11 +1200, BrAtTy > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:05:34 -0500, Nan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Indeed. I do hope we don't have to have a troll hugging festival.
>>>
>>>Nan
>>
>>Ohhhhhhhhhhh
>>
>>I'm nearly well enough for hugs ;-)
>>
>>I'd rather hug my friends than smelly trolls tho!
>
>Me too :-)
>Want a tim tam???


DAMN TIM TAMS!

[-L.]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message >...
> "BrAtTy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:37:43 +1000, seyshell
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >On 6 Aug 2003 03:03:54 -0700, (-L.) wrote:
> > >
> > >>If you are speaking of ASC - if you are childed you don't have any
> > >>business posting there, per the FAQ, and righfully so, since it is a
> > >>*support* group.
> > >>
> > >>-L.
> > >
> > >hear hear!!!
> > >Michelle
> >
> > Really, when you think about it, it's as inappropriate as someone with
> > children posting to a primary infertility newsgroup! and that is "NOT
> > ON"!!!
> >
> > Geez... what next... people who don't have alcohol problems posting to
> > alcoholics anon support groups to tell them alcohol isn't 'that'
> > bad...
> And, in that case, ASC'ers posting to misc.kids is equally inappropriate.

No. Misc.kids isn't a support group, and so, there might be reasons
for an ASCer to post on misc.kids - asking about certain parenting
practices, or why parents do some things. There is a lot of
opportunity for learning.

That being said, it would need to be a constructive discussion to be
worthwhile...

-L.

[-L.]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message news:<wydYa.54901$Oz4.14200@rwcrnsc54>...
> "Banty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, P. Tierney
> says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"-L." > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
> news:<LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54>...
> > >> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> > >> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge
> to
> go
> > >> > > > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to
> ASC-F
> are
> > >> > > > just, um, special.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly brush.
> > >> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.
> > >
> > > And thank you for incorrectly attributing a quote to me.
> >
> > Uh, yeah. And thanks (to "L.") for misinterpreting the statement, also.
> Unless
> > it's "broad and ugly" to present most folks of a category as *not* going
> around
> > speaking hatred...
>
> And I have to wonder, as an addendum, how do people think that such
> "attitudes" will be addressed? By hashing it out in a newsgroup and coming
> to a mutual understanding,

Perhaps. Opening minds is a possibility.

>thus somehow eliminating one problem in the
> world and making it a better place? I really don't think that some people
> understand the nature of Internet communication, much less how to correctly
> attribute quotes.
>

It was a mistake. I apologized. I'm human.

-L.

[-L.]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message news:<wydYa.54901$Oz4.14200@rwcrnsc54>...
> "Banty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, P. Tierney
> says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"-L." > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
> news:<LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54>...
> > >> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> > >> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge
> to
> go
> > >> > > > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to
> ASC-F
> are
> > >> > > > just, um, special.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly brush.
> > >> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.
> > >
> > > And thank you for incorrectly attributing a quote to me.
> >
> > Uh, yeah. And thanks (to "L.") for misinterpreting the statement, also.
> Unless
> > it's "broad and ugly" to present most folks of a category as *not* going
> around
> > speaking hatred...

Just so I don't get accused of misattribution again:
I'm replying to this post by Banty, here, because Google won't
retrieve her post.

No, Banty. What you did is painted everyone in ASC with the same
broad, ugly brush - some people in that newsgroup are actually very
nice and open minded, and many like children. Just as it is not fair
to wag that same ugly finger at all people in the
misc.kids/alt.mothers heirachy, it isn't fair to call all ASCers
"special". It was a *really* ugly statement.

-L.

[Banty]

In article >, -L. says...
>
>"P. Tierney" > wrote in message
>news:<wydYa.54901$Oz4.14200@rwcrnsc54>...
>> "Banty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, P. Tierney
>> says...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >"-L." > wrote in message
>> > m...
>> > >> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
>> news:<LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54>...
>> > >> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
>> > >> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > > You understand that most child-free people don't have a huge urge
>> to
>> go
>> > >> > > > around spouting hatred about sprogs, etc? The ones who post to
>> ASC-F
>> are
>> > >> > > > just, um, special.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly brush.
>> > >> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.
>> > >
>> > > And thank you for incorrectly attributing a quote to me.
>> >
>> > Uh, yeah. And thanks (to "L.") for misinterpreting the statement, also.
>> Unless
>> > it's "broad and ugly" to present most folks of a category as *not* going
>> around
>> > speaking hatred...
>
>Just so I don't get accused of misattribution again:
>I'm replying to this post by Banty, here, because Google won't
>retrieve her post.
>
>No, Banty. What you did is painted everyone in ASC with the same
>broad, ugly brush - some people in that newsgroup are actually very
>nice and open minded, and many like children. Just as it is not fair
>to wag that same ugly finger at all people in the
>misc.kids/alt.mothers heirachy, it isn't fair to call all ASCers
>"special". It was a *really* ugly statement.
>
>-L.


You're STILL having attribution problems. I did not say the statement in
question. Since you use Google, you should know you can search on exact phrase,
and that results can be sorted by date to get the earliest reference.

See Message-ID: >

Hint: put the id between the carots 3f.....edu in the message ID search. You
really need to master this stuff, especially if your advocacy here will be
incorporating attacking people for their statements.

Banty

[Banty]

In article >, -L. says...
>
>"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
>...
>> "BrAtTy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:37:43 +1000, seyshell
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 6 Aug 2003 03:03:54 -0700, (-L.) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>If you are speaking of ASC - if you are childed you don't have any
>> > >>business posting there, per the FAQ, and righfully so, since it is a
>> > >>*support* group.
>> > >>
>> > >>-L.
>> > >
>> > >hear hear!!!
>> > >Michelle
>> >
>> > Really, when you think about it, it's as inappropriate as someone with
>> > children posting to a primary infertility newsgroup! and that is "NOT
>> > ON"!!!
>> >
>> > Geez... what next... people who don't have alcohol problems posting to
>> > alcoholics anon support groups to tell them alcohol isn't 'that'
>> > bad...
>> And, in that case, ASC'ers posting to misc.kids is equally inappropriate.
>
>No. Misc.kids isn't a support group, and so, there might be reasons
>for an ASCer to post on misc.kids - asking about certain parenting
>practices, or why parents do some things. There is a lot of
>opportunity for learning.
>
>That being said, it would need to be a constructive discussion to be
>worthwhile...
>


ASC is more of an advocacy group and a social group and in some respects a hate
group than a true support newsgroup. Sorry - I look at things concretely and
functionally - a thing is as it does.

Don't you see that this "bridge" group would just end up discussing asc-f,
invoking response from asc-f? A bridge for trolls to hide under, a source for
crossposting flamefests. Hardly what I think would be a constructive addition to
USENET.

Banty

[Banty]

In article >, Nan says...
>
>On 6 Aug 2003 19:24:11 -0700, Banty > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Nan says...
>>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:05:11 +1200, BrAtTy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:05:34 -0500, Nan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed. I do hope we don't have to have a troll hugging festival.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nan
>>>>
>>>>Ohhhhhhhhhhh
>>>>
>>>>I'm nearly well enough for hugs ;-)
>>>>
>>>>I'd rather hug my friends than smelly trolls tho!
>>>
>>>Me too :-)
>>>Want a tim tam???
>>
>>
>>DAMN TIM TAMS!
>
>Heh. I knew I'd get to you ;-)
>
>Nan
>

It's one of Banty's signature songs :-)

[Wendy Marsden]

In misc.kids Banty > wrote:
> In article >, -L. says...
>>
>>No, Banty. What you did is painted everyone in ASC with the same
>>broad, ugly brush - some people in that newsgroup are actually very
>>nice and open minded, and many like children. Just as it is not fair
>>to wag that same ugly finger at all people in the
>>misc.kids/alt.mothers heirachy, it isn't fair to call all ASCers
>>"special". It was a *really* ugly statement.

> You're STILL having attribution problems. I did not say the statement in
> question.

I did. The subject was whether we needed bridges built between child-free
and parents. I argued that the child-free I know IRL (not child-less, but
actually politically child-free) get along just fine with me. They don't
seem to have an overwhelming urge to start yelling at me for having taken
an unpaid maternity leave or for using my sick time for my kids or
having them (gasp) make noise in a restaurant.

The only place I ever hear truly virulent spewing hatred of me as a parent
is when I listen in at alt.support.child-free. I don't doubt that
everyone has an urge to go and rant sometimes about unruly children or
societal pressure to shape their lives in uncomfortable ways. I don't
think the alt.support.child-free posters are "special" in that way.

I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
parent. *THAT'S* "special". And not in a good way.

And that's precisely why I don't want a group that attracts people who
define themselves as "child-free" to gather together with the express
purpose of talking to parents. Because I can't see it being anything
other than a free-for-all just because of what it would attract.

As a parent I just don't have anything to criticize people for who don't
choose to parent. I just wouldn't have any role in this group beyond
apologist or victim. I think Jayne is fooling herself to think there is
some altruistic anthropologist motive behind joining - at least for most
people.

Wendy

[Wendy Marsden]

In misc.kids Banty > wrote:

> Don't you see that this "bridge" group would just end up discussing asc-f,
> invoking response from asc-f? A bridge for trolls to hide under, a source for
> crossposting flamefests. Hardly what I think would be a constructive addition to
> USENET.

Well-written. That sums up the argument for me.

Wendy

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...

[]
> The only place I ever hear truly virulent spewing hatred of me as a parent
> is when I listen in at alt.support.child-free. I don't doubt that
> everyone has an urge to go and rant sometimes about unruly children or
> societal pressure to shape their lives in uncomfortable ways. I don't
> think the alt.support.child-free posters are "special" in that way.
>
> I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
> come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
> it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
> as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
> parent. *THAT'S* "special". And not in a good way.

Not everbody at asc does this and there are people who call themselves
childfree without being virulent and hateful.

> And that's precisely why I don't want a group that attracts people who
> define themselves as "child-free" to gather together with the express
> purpose of talking to parents. Because I can't see it being anything
> other than a free-for-all just because of what it would attract.

And your perception is exactly why I think this group is needed. Because
the name childfree has become associated with the negative extreme. There
are decent, intelligent, pleasant people who call themselves CF. It is not
fair to them that the extremists get to take over the name. And it is not
right for me as a parent to carry stereotypes around about what being CF
means.

> As a parent I just don't have anything to criticize people for who don't
> choose to parent. I just wouldn't have any role in this group beyond
> apologist or victim. I think Jayne is fooling herself to think there is
> some altruistic anthropologist motive behind joining - at least for most
> people.

Obviously some of the CF currently posting at acb are just there to give
parents a hard time. But others are genuinely interested in the expressed
purpose of the group.

Jayne

[Wendy Marsden]

In misc.kids Jayne Kulikauskas > wrote:

> And your perception is exactly why I think this group is needed. Because
> the name childfree has become associated with the negative extreme.

No, Jayne, childfree isn't associated with the negative extreme, the
group of people who choose to congregate together anonymously on usenet
under that name is what's associated with the negative extreme.

> There are decent, intelligent, pleasant people who call themselves CF.

And you're under the impression that they'd choose to spend their time
"building bridges" with unknown random parents on the subject?

> It is not fair to them that the extremists get to take over the name.

What an odd sentiment. You're fighting to prevent people from being
thought to have political sentiments they don't have? To keep the English
language pure with only one meaning for each word? Or just to keep the
world fair? (Sorry, I'm about to break into laughter here.)

> And it is not
> right for me as a parent to carry stereotypes around about what being CF
> means.

Well, I don't want the burden of preventing you from having unfair
stereotypes because you don't know enough people.

Wendy

[Banty]

In article >, Jayne Kulikauskas
says...
>
>

>> And that's precisely why I don't want a group that attracts people who
>> define themselves as "child-free" to gather together with the express
>> purpose of talking to parents. Because I can't see it being anything
>> other than a free-for-all just because of what it would attract.
>
>And your perception is exactly why I think this group is needed. Because
>the name childfree has become associated with the negative extreme.

This group will *attract specifically* the self-selected negative extreme
element.
This is counterproductive.

Banty

[Naomi Pardue]

> You respond to appropriate posts and ignore the
>others. My thanks to everyone who is willing to help.

Having been reading these threads for the past couple of days, here's my take.
I don't really see the point of the group. It will, IMO, attract, basically,
two groups of people:
1. Those who already have their bridges (see nothing wrong with people choosing
to live their own lives). So you will be, essentially, preaching to the choir.
2. Trolls from either side who will see this as a place to go and spout their
vitriol.

I honestly don't imagine that usenet is full of people who are going to see the
group and think "Y'know... all my life I've always thought that people who
don't want kids are mistaken and will someday change their mind, but maybe if I
join acb I will come to understand the way they feel"
or
"All my life I've known I didn't want kids,/hated kids and couldn't understand
why anyone would ever want to have them, but if I join acb, maybe I'll come to
understand why so many people want to be parents!"


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Lead Foot Mama" > wrote in message
...

[]
> ASC-F is a support group for the people who chose not to have
> children. It is their sanctuary to vent with others who understand
> how they feel. Let them have their place.

I agree that they should have their parent free place. However, other
parents keep coming there and posting. If those parents will come to a.c.b
instead, then the existence of a.c.b will actually be helping the support
group to work better.

Jayne

[-L.]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message >...
> "-L." > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you for paining all CF people with the same broad, ugly
> brush.
> > > > >> It is exactly this type of attitude that needs to be addressed.
> > >
> > > And I have to wonder, as an addendum, how do people think that such
> > > "attitudes" will be addressed? By hashing it out in a newsgroup and
> coming
> > > to a mutual understanding,
> >
> > Perhaps. Opening minds is a possibility.
>
> This assumes that those on all sides see the need that you see, stated
> above. There are thousands of things that people can spend time opening
> their minds to, but only so much time in the day, month, year, and life
> to tackle even 1% of them.

For some people this is true. For others, it's a priority.

>Each person prioritizes. And from what I've
> read here, addressing the attitude gap (or however you wish to term it)
> between those with kids and CFers isn't a priority to many people.

In this newsgroup.


>
> That doesn't make them lesser, shallow, or closed minded. It simply
> may mean that they have better things to do.

But those people aren't inclined to participate, are they?

-L.

[Banty]

In article >, -L. says...
>
>
>
>>Each person prioritizes. And from what I've
>> read here, addressing the attitude gap (or however you wish to term it)
>> between those with kids and CFers isn't a priority to many people.
>
>In this newsgroup.
>-L.

Um - question.

I haven't seen your participation in the parallel thread in asc. Unless you're
gracing us with a separate moniker.

Why aren't you lobbying over there? You can according to their FAQ, y'know,
your being childfree and all that. Or is it only we who need to have our minds
opened?

Banty

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
> > You respond to appropriate posts and ignore the
> >others. My thanks to everyone who is willing to help.
>
> Having been reading these threads for the past couple of days, here's my take.
> I don't really see the point of the group. It will, IMO, attract, basically,
> two groups of people:
> 1. Those who already have their bridges (see nothing wrong with people choosing
> to live their own lives). So you will be, essentially, preaching to the choir.
> 2. Trolls from either side who will see this as a place to go and spout their
> vitriol.

I agree.

Plus, this is looking to me like, "You can't come and post in my
inferility/childfree group, because you can't possibly understand me.
But I want you to come and post in THIS childfree group, so you can
understand my culture."

The argument that we'd need the group so childfree people can
understand US is silly. If infertility/childfree people want to
understand parents, they can come HERE, because our charter doesn't
specify, "No one not us can post here." They're likely even to start
interesting conversations, as long as they're not elizabeth-like.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Lead Foot Mama" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:19:57 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > wrote:
> >"Lead Foot Mama" > wrote in message
> ...

> >[]
> >> ASC-F is a support group for the people who chose not to have
> >> children. It is their sanctuary to vent with others who understand
> >> how they feel. Let them have their place.
> >
> >I agree that they should have their parent free place. However, other
> >parents keep coming there and posting. If those parents will come to
a.c.b
> >instead, then the existence of a.c.b will actually be helping the support
> >group to work better.
> >
> >Jayne
>
> Other parents? - parents like YOU who insist on trying to change them?

Why do you think that I want to change them? For the record, I don't.

> Parents like you who insist on meddling where your nose doesn't
> belong? Gee - and you wonder why they get frustrated and have their
> space to vent and you see the comments they make and all.
>
> Why can't you just leave this and them alone.

I am leaving alone the childfree who wish to be left alone. But some of
them have no problem discussing CF issues with parents and now they have a
place to do it.

> If you want some little "happy place" where everyone gets along, why
> don't you go to yahoo or msn and create a group there.

Because I'd rather use a newsgroup. Why do you care where I do it?

> Jayne - if you are their example of a breeder - I'd become an adamant
> childfree person too and would hate all breeders and their sprogs.

You are entitlled to your opinion, but I think you must have misunderstood
something about my position.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Michelle J. Haines" > wrote in message
...
[]
> Plus, this is looking to me like, "You can't come and post in my
> inferility/childfree group, because you can't possibly understand me.
> But I want you to come and post in THIS childfree group, so you can
> understand my culture."
[]

But what if all childfree did not think alike? What if some felt one way
and some felt the other?

Jayne

[P. Tierney]

"-L." > wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps. Opening minds is a possibility.
> >
> > This assumes that those on all sides see the need that you see,
stated
> > above. There are thousands of things that people can spend time opening
> > their minds to, but only so much time in the day, month, year, and life
> > to tackle even 1% of them.
>
> For some people this is true.

All people are limited by the time in the day, year, and life. Even
if we both live vigorous, inquisitive, learned lives, you and I will
both die one day without ever had the chance to open our minds to
thousands of issues, ideas, and subjects that the world and universe
are filled with.

> For others, it's a priority.

To do what, open their minds to issues? I didn't say that it wasn't a
priority for those here, I'm just saying that time requires people to
prioritize, and as such, there are many things that they will never
get the chance to explore.

> >Each person prioritizes. And from what I've
> > read here, addressing the attitude gap (or however you wish to term it)
> > between those with kids and CFers isn't a priority to many people.
>
> In this newsgroup.

Of course, that's where our discussion is taking place. But where is
the
dialogue flourishing? I read that in asc, not much is going on. So where
are the multitudes of parents and CFers discussing these common issues
between them?



P. Tierney

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Michelle J. Haines" > wrote in message
> ...
> []
> > Plus, this is looking to me like, "You can't come and post in my
> > inferility/childfree group, because you can't possibly understand me.
> > But I want you to come and post in THIS childfree group, so you can
> > understand my culture."
> []
>
> But what if all childfree did not think alike? What if some felt one way
> and some felt the other?

About WHAT?

I can't give you an answer to a non-question.

Look, if childfree people are really curious about something a parent
is doing (and it looks like the childfree newsgroup people are only
interested so they can point and laugh and indulge in other middle
school habits), they know where we are.

If they are really interested in people with children understanding
their position, since we don't have a rule that says, "Only parents
can post in the misc.kids hierarchy." they can come here and explain
said position. A position of, "I really hate it when people take
babies to movies, because they already cry. Why do people do that?"
is even likely to generate a decent discussion with plenty of parents
on the childfree "side" in that issue.

Obviously, a discussion of, "Why do you braindead moos bring your
bratly sprogs into places where decent people have to smell ****ty
diapers and see your gross udders?" isn't welcome here and we're
luckily able to avoid most of it.

And I doubt anyone who habitually engages in or reads such tripe has
anything to say that's worth hearing, even, "Hey, the sky is blue
today."

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Michelle J. Haines" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Michelle J. Haines" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > []
> > > Plus, this is looking to me like, "You can't come and post in my
> > > inferility/childfree group, because you can't possibly understand me.
> > > But I want you to come and post in THIS childfree group, so you can
> > > understand my culture."
> > []
> >
> > But what if all childfree did not think alike? What if some felt one
way
> > and some felt the other?
>
> About WHAT?

The two ideas you'd attributed to the childfree above. Some might feel "you
can't possibly understand me" and some might feel "I want you to undestand
my culture."

> I can't give you an answer to a non-question.

Sorry the reference was not clear enough.

> Look, if childfree people are really curious about something a parent
> is doing (and it looks like the childfree newsgroup people are only
> interested so they can point and laugh and indulge in other middle
> school habits), they know where we are.
[]

Until acb, a newsgroup did not exist for the sorts of discussions with CFs
that I was interested in. I know other people, both CF and parents,
interested in the same kind of group that I am. Now we have it. The people
who aren't interested can ignore it. Everybody will be happy. I don't see
what the problem is here.

Jayne

[just me]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>> And your perception is exactly why I think this group is needed. Because
> the name childfree has become associated with the negative extreme. There
> are decent, intelligent, pleasant people who call themselves CF. It is
not
> fair to them that the extremists get to take over the name. And it is not
> right for me as a parent to carry stereotypes around about what being CF
> means.
>


I think it is quite clear that there are many people in the world who do not
have children who are not as full of vitriol as certain members of ascf.
You have been presenting the rationale for the group you are trying to
create. You have also indicated that there is a creation team. Perhaps
there are some members of the team who are also child free who could
contribute to this discussion in order to explain how they also envision
this community and how it is not likely to devolve into continuous flame
wars deriding parents.

-Aula


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/30/03

[Banty]

In article >, Jayne Kulikauskas
says...

>
>Until acb, a newsgroup did not exist for the sorts of discussions with CFs
>that I was interested in. I know other people, both CF and parents,
>interested in the same kind of group that I am. Now we have it. The people
>who aren't interested can ignore it. Everybody will be happy. I don't see
>what the problem is here.

Ohhh, no problem at all - except that this group is very likely to attract those
who just want to lambast each other, and will make a very handy springboard for
those trolls who would love to disrupt asc or misc.kids or both. I happen to
care about misc.kids and view your sort of naiive blundering as a threat.

Can you extend your sight just a little beyond your starry-eyed little vision to
see what EFFECTS what you're trying to do may have on OTHERS?

If you revive a USENET newsgroup, what do you plan to do to prevent the concerns
we have about crossposted vitriol? Really - tell us. Because, frankly, since
you came to us with a silly little question like "oh, do you mind that we
crosspost to misc.kids just to get started?" (like my neighbor who might have
asked "oh, do you mind if I run my front loader on your lawn after five inches
of rain making muddy tracks everywhere?") you don't seem to have any
consideration or concept of what other people's concerns are! So I dont' have a
whole lot of faith in your judgement and aforesight. Sorry, I don't.

What gets me is that - you know well a place where there is some control, and
where parents and childfrees do talk. You participate. The BBB ("Breeders
Bite Back") web board. There *is* a forum. What's wrong with *that* forum? It
works well, last I checked, and doesn't carry this burden of unintended
consequences that are likely is to occur in an uncontrolled environment like
USENET. What the heck is it that makes you want to a USENET newsgroup as well?
Is it that it has to be *your* little place?

Banty

[Banty]

In article >, just me says...
>
>"Nan" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:45:59 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
>> > wrote:
>>> > I know other people, both CF and parents,
>> >interested in the same kind of group that I am. Now we have it. The
>people
>> >who aren't interested can ignore it. Everybody will be happy. I don't
>see
>> >what the problem is here.
>>
>> Except that you're not allowing everyone to ignore it, Jayne. You're
>> crossposting into other groups, and that has already shown to be an
>> invitation for trolls and disruptions.
>> One can only hope you're not telling them to seek out m.k. or a.m. for
>> answers to questions, as that would further show your agenda.
>>
>> If you want your group, then leave this one alone. At least with this
>> particular subject.
>>
>
>
>One wonders if it is time for everyone to drop the subject since Jayne is
>certainly not changing her opinion and no one else is either, and continued
>discussion in this and any related threads would become troll magnets at
>some point, probably soon. Planned ignoring is a useful item in one's bag
>of parenting tricks isn't it?
>
>-Aula

I think you're right. I've come to the conclusion that this is an
attention-getting device.

And there really ins't anything else that can be done anyway.

We should be prepared to do a lot of planned ignoring not to become otherwise
affected by this. Hopefully not.

Cheers,
Banty

[toto]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:45:59 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> wrote:

>Until acb, a newsgroup did not exist for the sorts of discussions with CFs
>that I was interested in. I know other people, both CF and parents,
>interested in the same kind of group that I am. Now we have it. The people
>who aren't interested can ignore it. Everybody will be happy. I don't see
>what the problem is here.

There is no problem.. You announced the group. People can either
post there or not. No more discussion is necessary about *why* you
wanted it. So why are you posting more to this thread. People who
don't see a need for the group won't see the need because you tell
them it's necessary, Jayne.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Nevermind]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "P. Tierney" > wrote in message
> news:LNVXa.49979$Oz4.13871@rwcrnsc54...
>
> []
> > So, what are some samples of thread topics that would reasonably
> > overlap? Hypothetically, of course.
>
> This is what it says in the alt.childfree.bridgebuilding FAQ:
>
> Q. What are some examples of possible topics of discussion?
>
> A. These include:
> Information about CF events, articles and websites.
> How the CF movement is related to population and environmental issues.
> Societal support (or not) for child-rearing such as tax deductions for
> children, maternity leave, subsidized day-care, family-friendly workplace
> policies.
> Appropriate standards of public behaviour for children
> Descriptions of personal experiences or news stories involving
> behaviour of children/parents or of the childfree that are likely to
> generate differing opinions among parents and childfree because of their
> differing perspectives.
> Comparing the CF movement to other social movements.

This list of issues reveals that the plan for the newsgroup is exactly
what I would have expected it to be: just another place for people who
"have issues" with parents and kids to complain about them, only this
time they will try to be polite about it and keep the parents around
so they can teach them a few things. Thanks, but no thanks. I have
nothing to learn from child-free people as a group *in general*. I can
learn lots from specific childless people who are interesting to me in
various ways or for various reasons. For example, my best friend was
childless for a number of years after I started my family, and it
appeared that she would always be. Her perspective on my family
situation was very enlightening to me, as she was my only close friend
who was single and childless. But most of all, she was my friend, and
with good reason -- she's a great person. So her opinion on everything
is important to me.

But if all I know about a person is that they have decided to not have
kids, that fact alone does not make the person's opinion interesting
to me. It doesn't make the person problematic for me, either. It's
neutral, just as a stranger knowing that I have kids doesn't really
tell them anything about me and should not make me either interesting
or anathema to them -- if they're reasonable people. Fact is, "bridge
building" between parents and nonparents goes on on usenet all the
time, on non-parenting and non-non-parenting (that is, non-childfree)
newsgroups. We talk about books and quilting and skiing and history
etc. One thing we really don't need to talk about is having kids.

> I have seen some pretty awful stuff done by the extreme CF minority. One of
> my first reactions was to prove to myself that they were a minority and that
> there are lots of pleasant CF people out there. I had to hunt around on
> mailing lists and websites and found them.

Though I admit that my on-line encounters with the "childfree" have
made me *extremely* sensitive in the presence of, and somewhat
preemptively hostile toward, people who don't have kids, of course I
know that "normal" childless people are out there; I don't need to
meet them on the net. And I doubt I would anyway, as it is precisely
these (normal) childless people who have other things on their minds.
I mean, isn't the great advantage of not having kids that you can do
so many other great things?! Believe me, if I didn't have 3 younguns,
I'd be reading Victorian novels, learning to play tennis, joining the
National Geographic expedition to the Amazon, keeping my toenails
painted -- WHATEVER. I hope to God that I wouldn't waste all that
blessed free time complaining that others don't understand how great
it is to not have kids. !!

> I'm hoping that a newsgroup like
> a.c.b will make them easier to find.

Why? From reading your posts in this thread, it seems to me like you
feel you have something to prove to these people. Trust me, you don't.
Having kids is not a sin, and anyone who stereotypes you because of
the simple fact that you're a parent doesn't deserve your
consideration. You'll never be able to convince them of anything. Just
let it go.

[lizzard woman]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:45:59 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > wrote:
>
> >Until acb, a newsgroup did not exist for the sorts of discussions with
CFs
> >that I was interested in. I know other people, both CF and parents,
> >interested in the same kind of group that I am. Now we have it. The
people
> >who aren't interested can ignore it. Everybody will be happy. I don't
see
> >what the problem is here.
>
> There is no problem.. You announced the group. People can either
> post there or not. No more discussion is necessary about *why* you
> wanted it. So why are you posting more to this thread. People who
> don't see a need for the group won't see the need because you tell
> them it's necessary, Jayne.

This business with this thread and Jayne's continued interest in pushing
this topic is among the more inscrutable items in this group in my opinion.

I don't get it. I see zero potential in this revitalized group for
generating anything but rancor.

--
sharon, momma to savannah and willow (11/11/94)

[Karen P]

Jayne,

I'm not a regular poster, but I'd like to give my opinion anyway. I
find it hard to believe that many people of the childfree ilk would
want any sort of discussion with the people they call "breeders".
Many people that post over there are fairly hateful people. Just
curious, why does this bridgebuilding interest you so much? I really
don't think you are gonna get many childfree people wanting to debate
with parents, but to each his own. Best of luck.

[Wendy Marsden]

In misc.kids Me > wrote:
> Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
>> I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
>> come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
>> it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
>> as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
>> parent.

> I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
> being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?

Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.

> So no, there are NO circumstances under which I'd parent. Period.

Fine, don't. I only object to you forming a community where you drum out
people who decide they actually DO want children after all. A community
where an unintended pregnancy is greeted with horror and a feeling of
treachery (you must have been oopsed) rather than the more common mixture
of fear and joy. (My experience is that the fear and joy stick with you
pretty much through the rest of your life, and I like living in a world
with such emotional texture to it.)

I don't care if you don't want children. I don't care if you don't have
children. But I think you are wrong to assume that people who SAY they
don't want children at 25 won't have children at 35. And that is part of
what is wrong with the "child-free" movement: the exact same people can be
in both camps during different parts of their lives.

I intend to be "child-free" one day and spend my days without little
critters hanging off of me. I won't enjoy cranky kids in the movies (as
if I do now) nor will I like the neighbor's kids screaming outside my
window or digging up my flower beds (oh, wait, that's the child-free
couple's dog, sorry). In fact, I could probably get behind most of the
child-free tenets EXCEPT that people who once declare themselves
child-free must always feel that way.

By the way, the two most fervant child-free couples I know had a member in
each couple who actually rather wanted children. They decided NOT to have
them for a variety of reasons (which I respect) but I think you'd be off
base to assume that people who don't want kids are absolutely positive
they'd never have them.

-- Wendy

[toto]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:15:34 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>> I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
>> being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?
>
>Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.

Sorry, but people can make permanent decisions on this point.

They make them in the same way that you make the decision
not to have *more* children than you wish (by tying their tubes,
having vasectomies, using good birth control).

I don't see that everyone who makes this decision will change
their mind though some might.and I respect those who have
made the decision a permanent one by choice.

Despite being a parent, I know that overpopulation *is* a problem
(It's one of the reasons we stopped at two children, but not the only
reason). I have no quarrel with anyone who says they will not have
children ever and does something to prevent it permanently because
they know what overpopulation does to the world and they know that
the first world countries use more resources per person, thus
reproducing in a first world country is more detrimental to the
environment than reproducing in a third world country (to the world,
not to the individual country)

Aside from that, there are people who know they would be lousy
parents because they know they haven't the patience they would
need. These people too have a right to have their choice
respected including being certain they will never want to parent.
You cannot tell someone that they don't *know* they will never
want to be a parent. And in this situation, it is best if they
actually allow their child to be adopted if they do have one,
since they *do* know their own situation and capability.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Chookie]

In article >,
toto > wrote:

> >> I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
> >> being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?
> >
> >Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.
>
> Sorry, but people can make permanent decisions on this point.
>
> They make them in the same way that you make the decision
> not to have *more* children than you wish (by tying their tubes,
> having vasectomies, using good birth control).

Er, Dorothy, have you never encountered cases where sterilisation procedures
haven't worked, or when supposedly good contraception hasn't worked?

Someone we know was under the care of the same GP for many years. She has
epilepsy. She went on the Pill about 6 months before she got married. Before
the wedding, she had been back to her doctor a few times, saying that the Pill
didn't seem to be working. He brushed her off. Guess who got pregnant pdq
after her wedding? And guess who then discovered that some epilepsy
medications void the effect of the Pill?

An Australian woman recently sued her doctor successfully for the costs of
raising the child she bore after a tubal ligation. The woman was under the
impression that one of her tubes had been removed in childhood, and the doctor
didn't check to see if she was right.

Even celibacy isn't a guarantee -- rapes happen.

Of course, @bortion is a possible backup. But not everyone is happy to have
one. I have only met one couple who were planning never to have children, and
really wondered how they would cope psychologically if they did have a
whoopsie. I think there is a Yiddish proverb about God laughing at those who
make plans...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[toto]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:51:36 +1000, Chookie
> wrote:

>Of course, @bortion is a possible backup. But not everyone
>is happy to have one. I have only met one couple who were
>planning never to have children, and really wondered how they
>would cope psychologically if they did have a whoopsie.

Hard to know how you cope, but if you really don't want
children, it's best if you don't have any.

>I think there is a Yiddish proverb about God laughing at
>those who make plans...

As technology grows better and better, there are less
chances of having such a *whoops*

Vasectomy has a 5% failure rate, but it can be redone
after testing and the couple can use other methods
while they wait for the infertility to be confirmed.

If both partners really do not wish to have children, then
they might have both a vasectomy for the male partner
and a tubal ligation for the female partner which would
reduce the chance of failure to near nil.

The morning after pill doesn't seem to have the same
stigma for most women as a surgical abortion would.

And finally, they might figure out what they would do if
they did find themselves pregnant. If they *know* they
would be lousy parents, they can choose abortion or
adoption.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[toto]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:51:36 +1000, Chookie
> wrote:

>> They make them in the same way that you make the decision
>> not to have *more* children than you wish (by tying their tubes,
>> having vasectomies, using good birth control).
>
>Er, Dorothy, have you never encountered cases where sterilisation
>procedures haven't worked, or when supposedly good contraception
>hasn't worked?

A few.. Not many though

And many contraceptive failures seem to be a failure of usage
rather than of the actual method itself. A couple that was really
committed to not having children would, imo, probably be less
prone to using such methods improperly.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[Clisby Williams]

Wendy Marsden wrote:

>In misc.kids Me > wrote:
>
>
>>Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
>>
>>
>>>I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
>>>come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
>>>it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
>>>as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
>>>parent.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
>>being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?
>>
>>
>
>Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.
>
>
>
>>So no, there are NO circumstances under which I'd parent. Period.
>>
>>
>
>Fine, don't. I only object to you forming a community where you drum out
>people who decide they actually DO want children after all. A community
>where an unintended pregnancy is greeted with horror and a feeling of
>treachery (you must have been oopsed) rather than the more common mixture
>of fear and joy. (My experience is that the fear and joy stick with you
>pretty much through the rest of your life, and I like living in a world
>with such emotional texture to it.)
>
>

If I didn't want children, I can't imagine "joy" being any part of my
reaction to pregnancy. "Horror"
would pretty much cover it.

Clisby

[H Schinske]

Dorothy ) wrote:

>This is after 6 months - about 5 % of men apparently have to have the
>procedure redone because the semen analysis is positive after the
>third test.

"Perhaps the most important complication to discuss is the failure rate of
vasectomy as a contraceptive method. Pregnancy occurs after a vasectomy in most
cases because the couple had sexual intercourse before azoospermia was
documented by two separate semen samples.8 Despite the importance of verifying
the lack of sperm in the semen after vasectomy, many patients do not comply
with the instructions for semen analysis. In one study, as many as 45 percent
of patients did not seek follow-up for semen analysis.8 True early failure,
defined as the presence of motile spermatozoa in the ejaculate four months
after surgery,9 is usually attributed to technical error or to early
recanalization of the vas. Early failure occurs in about one out of 300
vasectomies.10 Late recanalization is thought to be rare, although in one
study, the rate of recanalization was 0.6 percent one year after vasectomy.10"

http://www.aafp.org/afp/990700ap/137.html

--Helen

[-L.]

Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> In misc.kids Me > wrote:
> > Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> >> I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
> >> come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
> >> it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
> >> as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
> >> parent.
>
> > I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
> > being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?
>
> Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.

Yes, they do, but once a person decides to have a child, they are no
longer childfree, period.

>
> > So no, there are NO circumstances under which I'd parent. Period.
>
> Fine, don't. I only object to you forming a community where you drum out
> people who decide they actually DO want children after all.

Once they make that decision, they are no longer childfree.

> A community
> where an unintended pregnancy is greeted with horror and a feeling of
> treachery (you must have been oopsed) rather than the more common mixture
> of fear and joy.

Well, if I found out that THE one thing I most dreaded happened,
despite taking precautions against it, I would be horrified as well.
Not everyone thinks pregnancy is wonderful and dreamy, and an unwanted
pregnancy is devastating for anyone who is unprepared for it.


>(My experience is that the fear and joy stick with you
> pretty much through the rest of your life, and I like living in a world
> with such emotional texture to it.)

Well, your "texture" is another person's "Hell".

>
> I don't care if you don't want children. I don't care if you don't have
> children. But I think you are wrong to assume that people who SAY they
> don't want children at 25 won't have children at 35. And that is part of
> what is wrong with the "child-free" movement: the exact same people can be
> in both camps during different parts of their lives.

Yes, they can, but once the line of parenthood is crossed, they are no
longer childfree.

>
> I intend to be "child-free" one day and spend my days without little
> critters hanging off of me.

If you have children, you can never be childfree. Chilfreedom is a
political movement, as much as it is a social and environmental one.
You are confusing childlessness with childfreedom. You may be happy
to be childless, but you can never be childfree.


>I won't enjoy cranky kids in the movies (as
> if I do now) nor will I like the neighbor's kids screaming outside my
> window or digging up my flower beds (oh, wait, that's the child-free
> couple's dog, sorry).

That comment was a low blow, at best.

The attitudes you are describing about not enjoying unruly children
are not unique to the childfree.

> In fact, I could probably get behind most of the
> child-free tenets EXCEPT that people who once declare themselves
> child-free must always feel that way.

That's not a requirement, that I know of. If someone is childfree,
they have made the decision not to parent, and are happy about that
decision. They may change their minds, but once they do, they are no
longer childfree, *by definition*.

>
> By the way, the two most fervant child-free couples I know had a member in
> each couple who actually rather wanted children.

Then they were not a "childfree couple". They were a childless couple
wherein one partner was childfree, and the other was childless. One
can not be childfree and "want a child".

> They decided NOT to have
> them for a variety of reasons (which I respect) but I think you'd be off
> base to assume that people who don't want kids are absolutely positive
> they'd never have them.

You have a lack of understanding about the childfree movement. You
continuously confuse childfreedom with childlessness.

-L.

[-L.]

"P. Tierney" > wrote in message news:<3byYa.90100$Ho3.11389@sccrnsc03>...
> "-L." > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps. Opening minds is a possibility.
> > >
> > > This assumes that those on all sides see the need that you see,
> stated
> > > above. There are thousands of things that people can spend time opening
> > > their minds to, but only so much time in the day, month, year, and life
> > > to tackle even 1% of them.
> >
> > For some people this is true.
>
> All people are limited by the time in the day, year, and life. Even
> if we both live vigorous, inquisitive, learned lives, you and I will
> both die one day without ever had the chance to open our minds to
> thousands of issues, ideas, and subjects that the world and universe
> are filled with.
>
> > For others, it's a priority.
>
> To do what, open their minds to issues? I didn't say that it wasn't a
> priority for those here, I'm just saying that time requires people to
> prioritize, and as such, there are many things that they will never
> get the chance to explore.
>
> > >Each person prioritizes. And from what I've
> > > read here, addressing the attitude gap (or however you wish to term it)
> > > between those with kids and CFers isn't a priority to many people.
> >
> > In this newsgroup.
>
> Of course, that's where our discussion is taking place. But where is
> the
> dialogue flourishing? I read that in asc, not much is going on.

ASC is a support group and as such such dialogue is not welcome.

> So where
> are the multitudes of parents and CFers discussing these common issues
> between them?

In neighborhoods, grocery stores, on-line, in living rooms, just about
everywhere. And hopefully, in Jayne's group, once it gets
established.

-L.

[P. Tierney]

"-L." > wrote:
>
> If you have children, you can never be childfree. Chilfreedom is a
> political movement,

Political parties can document how many are a part of their
movement tallying those that have officially registered. After all,
one really can't be "political" and be passive about it.

Given that, how many people have joined the childfreedom
"movement"? Where can you reference the number of those who
have registered with the different "childfreedom" groups that
are, I guess, flourishing in this country?



P.
Tierney

[P. Tierney]

"-L." > wrote:
>
> In neighborhoods, grocery stores, on-line, in living rooms, just about
> everywhere.

So there is rabid, active, and engaging discussion in every nook and
cranny of our society about filling the understanding gap between
those with children and the "childfree", huh?

If so, one wonders why a newsgroup is needed if one can just stick
the head out the window to get an earful of thoughtful discourse.

> And hopefully, in Jayne's group, once it gets
> established.

Good luck to her and all involved. But whatever the over/under line
is on posters and/or posts that actually serious, I'll bet the under.




P. Tierney

[Barbara Bomberger]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:15:34 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>
>Because people change, situations change, and biological urges exist.

But there are many people who never change t heir minds, period. I am
one of four children. Two us us committed at an early age not to be
parents, and have never change their minds.

I do not believe that we all hve the "biological urge" to have
children.

Not only that, but biological urges aside, people who aren't one
hundred percent comitted to parenting , shouldn't quite simply, be
parents I suspect.

Some people may change their minds. For every person who said "never"
at 25 and changed their minds, I probably know three who didn't.

I also know a bunch who said "maybe later" which is not the same
thing.
>
>> So no, there are NO circumstances under which I'd parent. Period.
>
>Fine, don't. I only object to you forming a community where you drum out
>people who decide they actually DO want children after all. A community
>where an unintended pregnancy is greeted with horror and a feeling of
>treachery (you must have been oopsed) rather than the more common mixture
>of fear and joy.
But if someone truly doesn;'t want to be a parent, why SHOULD they
treat that circumstance with joy in any way? (
>with such emotional texture to it.)
I wouldnt call an unwanted, unplanned child "emotional texture"
>

Barb

[Banty]

In article >, Nan says...
>
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:18:48 GMT, "P. Tierney"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"-L." > wrote:
>>>
>>> In neighborhoods, grocery stores, on-line, in living rooms, just about
>>> everywhere.
>>
>> So there is rabid, active, and engaging discussion in every nook and
>>cranny of our society about filling the understanding gap between
>>those with children and the "childfree", huh?
>
>IME there are no such discussions going on. All the CF people I know
>feel no need to have such discussions. They've made a choice, they
>move forward, and they live their lives.
>But then, the CF folks I'm friendly with don't hate people with
>children, either.
>
>Nan

It makes about as much sense as saying there are rabid, active discussions
between apartment dwellers and homeowners. Or between those who hire into
corporations and those who have gone into business for themselves. Of course
there are individual discussions of life and lifestyle decisions amongst
friends, acquaintances, family members, and an occassional newspaper column.

There's an apartment dweller here and there angry about the mortgage interest
deduction, and some entrepeneurs who disdain those who hire into a firm as
lacking in willingness to risk. But no one casts life decisions into membership
in some persecuted minority, unless they have a pathological liking for that
status. Of course, on USENET, these find each other..

Banty

[Kathy Cole]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:15:34 GMT, Wendy Marsden >
wrote:

> (My experience is that the fear and joy stick with you pretty much
> through the rest of your life, and I like living in a world with
> such emotional texture to it.)

An unwanted pregnancy is not the sort of emotional texture I want,
thanks.

There is a reason the ascf folks chase parents out. Why on earth would
they want to talk to someone who wants to pat them on the head
condescendingly because they just know better, and that the decision at
twenty won't still be the decision at 35?

[P. Tierney]

"Nan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:18:48 GMT, "P. Tierney"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"-L." > wrote:
> >>
> >> In neighborhoods, grocery stores, on-line, in living rooms, just about
> >> everywhere.
> >
> > So there is rabid, active, and engaging discussion in every nook and
> >cranny of our society about filling the understanding gap between
> >those with children and the "childfree", huh?
>
> IME there are no such discussions going on. All the CF people I know
> feel no need to have such discussions. They've made a choice, they
> move forward, and they live their lives.

So such people without kids move on with their lives and don't
get caught up in endless discussions about how to get along with
those who have kids? Instead, they just move on and enjoy what
they enjoy in life?

Wow, what a radical concept. ;-)


P.
Tierney

[Chookie]

In article >,
Barbara Bomberger > wrote:

> >didn't seem to be working. He brushed her off. Guess who got pregnant pdq
> >after her wedding? And guess who then discovered that some epilepsy
> >medications void the effect of the Pill?
> 1. If I had an illness or were taking multiple drugs and had
> questions, I would do research about the possible complications and
> side effects (and I do)

Well, you probably aren't 22! And frankly, if a doctor has been prescribing
your epilepsy meds since your childhood, you *should* be able to trust that he
would prescribe an appropriate contraceptive!

<snip>

> I think that many peopl eare unprepared to be parents. The idea that
> if an accident happened it might be a good thing for these folks to
> become parents kind of astounds me.

<Shrug> I think it depends a lot on the individuals. Some rise to the
challenge and are great parents, maybe just a few years earlier than expected,
as with our epileptic acquaintance, or perhaps never having considered
children before. There are also many people who want and have children, but
who are really bad at parenting. Wanting or not-wanting is orthogonal to
competence, I think.

The only time that I find myself thinking that children would improve someone
is when the person concerned is some sort of anal neat-freak. The thought of
watching them cope with a toddler warms my cold, cynical heart :-)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[Me]

Michelle J. Haines > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> > > I do mean, though, that they are "special" in that they have chosen to
> > > come together and dwell on that one aspect of their lives and they feed on
> > > it and develop it with cutesy terms like crotchfruit and define themselves
> > > as "child-free" as if no circumstances could ever persuade them to
> > > parent.
> >
> > I must take issue with that last point. What exactly is wrong with
> > being certain that no circumstances could ever persuade one to parent?
>
> Nothing.
>
> There's a hell of a lot wrong with degrading other human beings
> because they don't make that choice.
>
> There's a hell of a lot wrong about lurking in parenting forums, so
> posts about breastfeeding, childbirth, and desire for children so
> everyone can be copied so everyone can go, "EEEWWWWWWWWW!!!
> GROOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!" and make fun of people
>
> The decision not to parent is an adult one.
>
> The latter behavior are those of a middle school student or an
> enormous, bigoted jackass.


True enough, and that's why *I* don't do those things, nor did I ever
say that I approve of them.

[Me]

Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> In misc.kids Me > wrote:
> > Wendy Marsden > wrote in message >...
> I only object to you forming a community where you drum out
> people who decide they actually DO want children after all. A community
> where an unintended pregnancy is greeted with horror and a feeling of
> treachery (you must have been oopsed) rather than the more common mixture
> of fear and joy.

I'm sorry, but I can't see placing "unintended pregnancy" and "joy" in
the same sentence. A number of CFers would be, by their own
admission, bad parents. If one of them were to get pregnant, it would
be a *very* bad situation for all concerned, and I don't see why
that's anything to be happy about.

As for asking people to leave if they decide they want children, it's
been our experience that once a person decides they do want children
after all, they can talk of nothing else and that gets very tiresome
very quickly. Further, they also try to convert us to their way of
thinking, and that's a tactic I have zero patience for.

> I don't care if you don't want children. I don't care if you don't have
> children. But I think you are wrong to assume that people who SAY they
> don't want children at 25 won't have children at 35.

I think you are wrong on this one. I didn't like most children when I
was a child. I didn't like babysitting when I was a teenager (and I
was awful at it, too). I don't like hanging out with my friends' kids
now. Not that I want to do them any harm, mind you, I just can't
relate to children. Never could. I suppose I was born 30. :)

DH is pretty much the same as I am on this issue. Barring alien
brain-scrambling rays, I doubt he'd change his mind, either. Let me
also say that if I thought I would ever want a child to be part of my
life, I would not have married the man I married.

>I think you'd be off
> base to assume that people who don't want kids are absolutely positive
> they'd never have them.

I think you would be off base to assume that they are not. It's
rather rude to tell someone that you know their mind better than they
do.

If you're still convinced that all 20-somethings who claim that they
won't ever want kids are fibbing, I guess there's nothing further I
can say to convince you. *tips hat* Good day, everyone.

[Donna Metler]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Barbara Bomberger > wrote:
>
> > >didn't seem to be working. He brushed her off. Guess who got pregnant
pdq
> > >after her wedding? And guess who then discovered that some epilepsy
> > >medications void the effect of the Pill?
> > 1. If I had an illness or were taking multiple drugs and had
> > questions, I would do research about the possible complications and
> > side effects (and I do)
>
> Well, you probably aren't 22! And frankly, if a doctor has been
prescribing
> your epilepsy meds since your childhood, you *should* be able to trust
that he
> would prescribe an appropriate contraceptive!
>
> <snip>
Uh, hate to say this, but anticonvulsants are generally prescribed by a
neurologist. Sometimes, they're then monitored by the GP after that. Birth
control is almost always prescribed by your GYN. Your GYN may not even KNOW
you're on a particular anti-convulsant unless you tell him/her-and almost
certainly would have to look up the interaction. And (as someone who took
depakote for years), EVERY pharmacy label I've seen on an anticonvulsant
which affects birth control pills states that "This medication may reduce
the effectiveness of some birth control medications". So does web MD, _The
Drug Book_, and similar sources.

Frankly, if you're on chronic medication-especially one as low level and
which interacts with as many things as anticonvulsants does, you'd better be
looking up interactions before you take anything. Similarly, filling ALL
prescriptions through the same pharmacy is a good strategy, because often
their systems will cathc interactions the doctors miss.

Bottom line-it is the patient's responsibility to make sure their birth
control and medications don't interact badly.


>
> > I think that many peopl eare unprepared to be parents. The idea that
> > if an accident happened it might be a good thing for these folks to
> > become parents kind of astounds me.
>
> <Shrug> I think it depends a lot on the individuals. Some rise to the
> challenge and are great parents, maybe just a few years earlier than
expected,
> as with our epileptic acquaintance, or perhaps never having considered
> children before. There are also many people who want and have children,
but
> who are really bad at parenting. Wanting or not-wanting is orthogonal to
> competence, I think.
>
> The only time that I find myself thinking that children would improve
someone
> is when the person concerned is some sort of anal neat-freak. The thought
of
> watching them cope with a toddler warms my cold, cynical heart :-)


>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
> or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[Barbara Bomberger]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:21:27 +1000, Chookie
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Barbara Bomberger > wrote:
>
>
>> 1. If I had an illness or were taking multiple drugs and had
>> questions, I would do research about the possible complications and
>> side effects (and I do)
>
>Well, you probably aren't 22! And frankly, if a doctor has been prescribing
>your epilepsy meds since your childhood, you *should* be able to trust that he
>would prescribe an appropriate contraceptive!

Well, I for one would hope that the GP or specialist who was
prescribing eplepsy meds was not my gyn, for one. I would assume that
one would have at least two different doctors.

Would not epilepsy meds be given by a neurologist? I hope the neuro
isnt also doing family planning (or preventions?)

Kind of like my kid having asthma - nothing to do with the
GYN issue. She (and I ) have always known who to ask about drug
interactions.

><Shrug> I think it depends a lot on the individuals. Some rise to the
>challenge and are great parents, maybe just a few years earlier than expected,
>as with our epileptic acquaintance, or perhaps never having considered
>children before. There are also many people who want and have children, but
>who are really bad at parenting. Wanting or not-wanting is orthogonal to
>competence, I think.

I agree. But many people dont want children later, they simply dont
want them at all. Of my family, two of us have children, and two of
us will never have children. I doubt that an accident will happen,
but I am sure that shoul dit, for these two siblings it would be a
disaster.

If people hate the idea of children, Im not sure how they can ever,
really be good parents.

This issue is totally different than the "maybe later" issue. Some
people want to wait, some people never want children.

I see never wanting children as a valid choice, and would never, ever,
tell someone "Just wait until you get pregnant, youll change you're
mind".

Kind of like telling the gay couple down the street that if they ever
met the right guy, I know they'd go straight..................NOT
>

Barb

[Chookie]

In article >,
Barbara Bomberger > wrote:

> >Well, you probably aren't 22! And frankly, if a doctor has been prescribing
> >your epilepsy meds since your childhood, you *should* be able to trust that
> >he would prescribe an appropriate contraceptive!
>
> Well, I for one would hope that the GP or specialist who was
> prescribing eplepsy meds was not my gyn, for one. I would assume that
> one would have at least two different doctors.
>
> Would not epilepsy meds be given by a neurologist? I hope the neuro
> isnt also doing family planning (or preventions?)

The person in question said that her doctor was prescribing her both her
epilepsy medication and her pill. Are you saying that in your country you
have to see a specialist to get the pill? And that you go to a neurologist
every time you need a repeat of your epilepsy prescription? Here, it is the
GP (general practitioner) who keeps track of your health as a whole and of
drug interactions.
<snip>

> >Wanting or not-wanting is orthogonal to competence, I think.
>
> I agree. But many people dont want children later, they simply dont
> want them at all. [...]
>
> If people hate the idea of children, Im not sure how they can ever,
> really be good parents.

If wanting/not-wanting is orthogonal to competence, then it is at least
possible. I must say that I've never been the clucky type, even when at some
level I thought it was time to have a child. I assumed hormones would take
care of the emotional side.

As DS is the most attractive and intelligent child I've ever come across, I
haven't needed the hormones ;-)

> I see never wanting children as a valid choice, and would never, ever,
> tell someone "Just wait until you get pregnant, youll change you're
> mind".

I wouldn't either, but I believe people who categorically say that they won't
have children *ever* are setting themselves up for psychological hardship if
it ever does happen -- or even if they change their minds. Rigidity is not an
aid to mental health!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[Donna Metler]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Barbara Bomberger > wrote:
>
> > >Well, you probably aren't 22! And frankly, if a doctor has been
prescribing
> > >your epilepsy meds since your childhood, you *should* be able to trust
that
> > >he would prescribe an appropriate contraceptive!
> >
> > Well, I for one would hope that the GP or specialist who was
> > prescribing eplepsy meds was not my gyn, for one. I would assume that
> > one would have at least two different doctors.
> >
> > Would not epilepsy meds be given by a neurologist? I hope the neuro
> > isnt also doing family planning (or preventions?)
>
> The person in question said that her doctor was prescribing her both her
> epilepsy medication and her pill. Are you saying that in your country
you
> have to see a specialist to get the pill? And that you go to a
neurologist
> every time you need a repeat of your epilepsy prescription? Here, it is
the
> GP (general practitioner) who keeps track of your health as a whole and of
> drug interactions.
> <snip>
>
Most health plans here pay for one GYN visit a year-and it is often easier
to get into a GYN for a pelvic exam than it would be to get an appointment
with a GP. My neurologist only saw me once a year or when I was having
problems-the prescription was written for 12 months at a time. Same with
birth control pills.

HMOs have done a number on having one "family doctor" who handles
everything.

[Tatjana Farkin]

"Chookie" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> The person in question said that her doctor was prescribing her both
her
> epilepsy medication and her pill. Are you saying that in your
country you
> have to see a specialist to get the pill? And that you go to a
neurologist
> every time you need a repeat of your epilepsy prescription?

That's how it is here in Germany!

Prescriptions for the Pill are only available from gyns (and I think
(gyns at) family planning clinics, but I don't know anyone who's ever
been to one, so I can't say for sure). *Theoretically* any doctor can
prescribe anything, so you *could* get anything w/o monitoring from your
dentist friend at the local astronomy club, but if we're talking kosher
scrips, only from gyns.

DH gets his asthma meds from a lung specialist and hCG from an
endocrinologist. My mum does get her heart meds from our GP, but that's
because she doesn't see her cardiologist regularly and he sends reports
to our GP.

--
Tatjana
PCOS - TTC #1 for 2 years

[Chookie]

In article >,
"Donna Metler" > wrote:

> Most health plans here pay for one GYN visit a year-and it is often easier
> to get into a GYN for a pelvic exam than it would be to get an appointment
> with a GP. My neurologist only saw me once a year or when I was having
> problems-the prescription was written for 12 months at a time. Same with
> birth control pills.

So if your GYN gave you bcps that didn't agree with you (nausea, mood swings
etc), you would have to pay for a second visit? And I presume a GYN is more
expensive than a GP -- they certainly are here.

> HMOs have done a number on having one "family doctor" who handles
> everything.

Why? It seems to me that the GP would be more cost-effective. But our health
insurance is quite different to yours (thank God), so I probably don't
understand the full picture.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[Donna Metler]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Donna Metler" > wrote:
>
> > Most health plans here pay for one GYN visit a year-and it is often
easier
> > to get into a GYN for a pelvic exam than it would be to get an
appointment
> > with a GP. My neurologist only saw me once a year or when I was having
> > problems-the prescription was written for 12 months at a time. Same with
> > birth control pills.
>
> So if your GYN gave you bcps that didn't agree with you (nausea, mood
swings
> etc), you would have to pay for a second visit? And I presume a GYN is
more
> expensive than a GP -- they certainly are here.

This would be covered, but probably you'd end up doing a phone consultation
and a different script would be called in.


>
> > HMOs have done a number on having one "family doctor" who handles
> > everything.
>
> Why? It seems to me that the GP would be more cost-effective. But our
health
> insurance is quite different to yours (thank God), so I probably don't
> understand the full picture.

It's litigation-related. If a PCP doesn't do a referral, and something
needed to be done, they'd risk a suit. They're not going to monitor
neuroleptic drugs or psychotropic medications for that reason.
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
> or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990