UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

Barbara wrote:

snip a lot of BS all of which was never stated or inferred by me...


Let me make what I said a bit clearer, since you apparently lack the
ability to make inferences from text.

No, it's simply not a reality.

I assume that you don't have a
split personality, and therefore, that in your playgroup, you act just
like you act here. Accordingly, it hardly surprises me that people
don't like you.

Of course you would assume that because to you, there isn't any other
possibility, or interpretation, is there? That is what makes you one
of the m.k. Moo Queens - obtuse and presumptive, as ever...

And again, how many times do I have to explain that the woman never had
set eyes on me prior to the incident? There wasn't anything *to*
dislike.

-L.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

Maybe it would help if you think over whether you're sure
it's racism or not. If you're sure, then you could just
tell us you've made up your mind it's racism, and that would
be that. It only makes sense to ask us for possible
explanations if you're not sure.

Why do you have any doubt that I am I not sure what it was? I have
stated over and over again that I was puzzled by the entire incident -
that racism was the only thing I could think of that was *apparent*,
and that I was wondering if others had any other ideas - many did,
including yourself.


Banty gave what looked to me like a possible explanation,
and you blasted her for not excluding that possibility on
the basis of information that you knew but that I didn't
remember seeing previously posted.

I "blasted her" for "making up scenarios" when she has absolutley no
reason to do so. She might have well said "she is an alien from outer
space" as it would have been just as valid and just as correct. Banty
does that kind of thing all the time. All she had to do was ask "Was
she engaged in conversation with another adult at the time"?
Furthermore, I believe I had already stated that she was sitting alone
or with her kids someplace in the thread, prior Banty's post.


By the way, I retract my original advice. That was
aimed at the situation where she doesn't answer you
when you speak to her. You've said that she does
answer you, so I don't think that advice would work
well or even be applicable.

I I have been given some good explanations I hadn't thought of
previously, and it does shed some insight. Like I said, the
incident(s) sort of just threw me as it is an experience I hadn't
encountered before, ever.

-L.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
"-L." ) writes:
I have never been around the lady, ever, before she showed the
behavior. You can't get signals from someone you have never been
around. Furthermore, there is no mistaking how I feel about someone.
I am pretty much an open book in that regard. I never even looked at
the woman, had no opinion of her, thought nothing about her, until
after the incident. You can't get "signals" if there are none to get.

Following that logic, she couldn't possibly have observed
your child's skin colour and made any decisions based
on that information.

But as soon as she saw him, she could have.


Even if you weren't thinking about her, you could have
given off unconscious signals about your own personality
type. If you spoke to her, there would have been
information in your tone of voice. She may
have totally misinterpreted the information, but
it would have been there. Nobody speaks with a robot
voice (or if they did, that would send a signal of
some sort, too).

Agreed. However, in my favor, I am generally well-received and
friendly. And I can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, so I must not be too
off-putting.

-L.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
"-L." ) writes:
Maybe that is why this woman seemed so weird - she gave me absolutley
*no* feedback to go on. I couldn't tell you anything about her except
she was deadpan, cold and completely unresponsive to DS's attempts at
making contact with her.

Possibly she's depressed, or grieving the recent
death of a family member.

Yes, that's one scenario I hadn't considered. That and PPD as someone
else mentioned. I think her daughter is 9 mos old.
-L.

On 1 Feb 2006 18:38:08 -0800, "-L." wrote:


toto wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 15:58:07 -0800, "-L." wrote:


Let me clairfy something. It should read "I am not a believer in
ADHD-type "disorders" being organically derived, for the most part, nor
that most diagnoses as such are valid."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...32/ai_20608734

You can quote any research paper you want. I still think it's a crock
of ****. shrug Data can be manipulated to say whatever you want it
to say - I worked in research in the public and private sector for over
15 years.

-L.

Neuroscience is not quite the same as the research on spanking, you
know.


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

toto wrote:
Neuroscience is not quite the same as the research on spanking, you
know.


What the hell are you talking about spanking for?

-L.

Stephanie wrote:

What blows my mind is a little more simple. It is not the responsibility of
the non-bigotted to accomidate the bigotted. The only reason in the world
that children might suffer in any kind of inter-racial relationship is due
to bigotry. Blech.

Thank you. So many people just can't wrap their minds around that
concept.
-L.

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Nan wrote:
Better lace up your own shoe, hon. If you claimed EIC or Child Tax
Credit on your return, you fit the CF definition of entitlemoo.

Nan

No, ****y, you wouldn't recognize an entitlemoo if it bit you on the
ass. Entitlemoo isn't merely anyone who is a Mother. It is a mother
who thinks she's "speshul" because she's sprogged and seeks and expects
"speshul" treatment because of it.

Unlike you, I am a PNB.


What's a PNB? And how do you distinuish between entitlemoo and plain ol'
parent? Why would you choose to use angry child hating CF terminology?
Things I wonder.

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

-L. wrote:
snip

and derogating those kids who fall below your
definition of perfection.

Nope. I merely told Michelle or whatever her name was to enjoy her
"organically deficient" child. That's because I am not a believer in
ADHD-type diagoses, for the most part.

Let me clairfy something. It should read "I am not a believer in
ADHD-type "disorders" being organically derived, for the most part, nor
that most diagnoses as such are valid."


ON what do you base this? Though the medical establishment is getting more
and more wary of the over diagnosis and mis-diagnosis of this disorder, I
don't think that they are in agreement with you.

It's amazing how, with you moo-types, one statement to one person about
one specific child becomes me "derogating those kids who fall below
your definition of perfection."

But that type of thing is what makes you all Stepfordmoos.

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

toto wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 15:58:07 -0800, "-L." wrote:


Let me clairfy something. It should read "I am not a believer in
ADHD-type "disorders" being organically derived, for the most part, nor
that most diagnoses as such are valid."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...32/ai_20608734

You can quote any research paper you want. I still think it's a crock
of ****. shrug Data can be manipulated to say whatever you want it
to say - I worked in research in the public and private sector for over
15 years.

-L.



So what you are saying is you base this opinion of adhd on thin air? I mean,
I believe in the great pumpkin, but that's a tad different.